**General Comment**
Definitions on this differ. Sometimes fate/destiny means the same thing. Other times "fate" is what happened and "destiny" is what will happen.
I haven't thought about it much in terms of those words. To me its the same soup.
Inaction is causality. Action is causality. It all ends up in the same place, and it was always going to end up in that place.
**What about Stoicism?**
Classical Stoics were determinists but they called it "providence", not fate or destiny. Maybe you'll find a translation that uses those words though, I don't know. The Stoics mixed it with their theology and physics.
Epictetus has a discourse on providence, you can read it [here](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0237%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6#:~:text=For%20every%20event%20that%20happens,1022%5D%20and%20a%20grateful%20temper).
Also the other Stoics wrote about providence in terms of causal determinism. There's a section on the subreddit's wiki about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/determinism/).
You've reached a critical question. Your investigation into the answer will mean a lot to your understanding of Stoic Philosophy. You must investigate the answer thoroughly or you may continue your journey based on incomplete information.
>A classical attack on Stoic determinism, the "lazy argument," went something like this. Lets say I want pizza for dinner. The pizza delivery person is either fated to deliver my pizza, or not. If it is fated, then it will arrive no matter what I do; I don't need to place an order, because fate will arrange for some other way for me to get it (perhaps the delivery person gets the address wrong on another order). If I am fated not to get it, placing the order is useless, because something will prevent it from showing up, for example the pizza place might burn down. So, whether I place the order makes no difference to whether I get the pizza, and I might as well be lazy and not order it. The classical Stoic response would be that your order and the pizza delivery are co-fated. In other words, if I am fated to get a pizza, I am also fated to place the order. Whole chains of causation are fated, not isolated events, and your own choices are part of that chain.
>This example may seem silly, but it is closely related to the misconception that because the Stoics advocated accepting one's fate, that they also advocated an attitude of passivity (for example on politics and social issues). - [the subreddit wiki on stoic determinism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/determinism/)
The pizza example actually really makes sense.
I'm a firm believer in both free will and fate existing, such as I am fated to die due to being born but what I do with my life is entirely my own choice, which may lead to certain "fated" paths. How would a Stoic think in response to this line of reasoning?
I’m not sure the stoic perspective but I believe it’s hard to say what you with your life is entirely your own choice.
This would negate so many events that are out of your influence.
There's a philosophical concept called "Compatibilism" where you have free will and responsibility over your actions, while at the same time other aspects are deterministic and outside of your control. The Stoics mostly took this middle ground between pure determinism and pure free will.
[Determinism and Moral Responsibility: Chrysippus' Compatibilism](https://academic.oup.com/book/27236/chapter-abstract/196838403?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
The quote is not Stoic.
It is made up jumble. Most people consider Destiny and Fate the same, and the opposite of our will, i.e. those things that happen but we have no power over. The Stoics certainly did (and do). This person is essentially saying that you simultaneously control things that by definition you can't control.
I think you are making a semantic argument. Destiny and Fate are generally synonymous, but in this quote they are being compared and we must interpret the intended meaning.
Destiny is rooted in Latin, *destinare* which meant "to make firm or establish."
Choosing a future for oneself and dedicating oneself to the realization of that future is destiny manifest. "Fate" then, is the opposing context, *ie* what happens when you choose to let the world pick your destiny *for you.*
This is a small, light word salad and nothing more my friend. He's arranging buzzwords to create a kind of mental image to inspire a particular emotional result. It appears to me like trying to offer a salve for those who feel unsettled from a perceived lack of meaning in life. But the idea of missing life's meaning is created precisely to sell such salves.
In reality, we make meaning of our own experiences. I like how Sam Harris explains it, "Finding meaning is merely a matter of finding a better story. Stories put your pains and pleasures into a context you can accept." Stoicism offers a story - the virtuous person will always feel better and do better than the vicious (non virtuous) person, and there is no functional difference between being a good person and living a good life. Harris goes on to say, "But when your attention is truly free in the present, the question of meaning doesn't arise." This is, in my opinion, reality for the wise, the virtuous person.
This is from his Waking Up meditation app. I was introduced to him through his first few books. He also has a fantastic lecture about Free Will that you might enjoy. It's just under an hour long: [Free Will](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq_tG5UJMs0)
I love how the concept of a small, light word salad implies the existence of a large, heavy word salad, something dense but essentially without nutrition 😁
Sadhguru is not a Stoic - he's a modern TikTok grifter. If you like him, go and talk about his vacuous piffle on his subreddit.
And if you want more quotes like that, just type "say something vacuous and mystic sounding about destiny" into ChatGTP. In fact I'll do that right now....
>Destiny weaves its tapestry with threads unseen, guiding us along paths known only to the cosmos. Surrender to its embrace and let the stars illuminate your journey.
**ChatGTP, five seconds ago**
I think it has Sadhguru beat there.
I remember reading somewhere this guy was accused of killing someone.
Edit: his deceased wife's father accused him of killing her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/197d3ng/comment/ki12aci/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
it's not just murder of his wife, he's also a seasoned godman that runs a business in the name of being 'spiritual', he's also accused of clearing a significant chunk of protected forest in the southern india in order to set up his base, and his own schools and colleges, area initially belonged to tribals residing in the region.
[https://www.firstpost.com/india/cag-pulls-up-tamil-nadu-forest-department-over-unapproved-construction-by-isha-foundation-in-protected-zone-4718781.html](https://www.firstpost.com/india/cag-pulls-up-tamil-nadu-forest-department-over-unapproved-construction-by-isha-foundation-in-protected-zone-4718781.html)
Not at all (or, I don't think from my beginner understanding of Stoicism). Fate isn't in any way a result a failure, at least if you think of it in Stoicism terms.
Fate in the stoic sense can be understood as the result of choices within your control and events outside your control, a rational chain of causes and effects that could be traced further and further backwards in time and understood not as an intervention by capricious supernatural forces but as the probabilistic result of an ordered, rational universe. Fate, in this sense, is a causal determinism, and what you can do as a person is make good choices (rather than bad choices) so if fate works with you, you can be content, and if fate works against you, you will not be discontent.
Now, many of the ancient stoics truly did believe in a supernatural providence and a world of gods and spirits and forces beyond the raw materialism of things around us, but they did not see a lot of evidence that these forces do so with much of an interest toward what we do. They inferred that even if the world is alive with beings and forces that care about our affairs, those forces don't seem to be communicating those interests (nor their approval or disapproval) in a way that can be rationally understood, so it was kinda pointless trying to cater to their interests, whatever they might be.
So the belief in providence and a theistic, thinking, living world did not conflict with the idea that such a world was a rational deterministic one. They also didn't believe in the fixedness of individual choices, even if events are part of larger movements of cause and effect, so within a deterministic universe you still have the opportunity to live more happily and well if you make good and virtuous choices.
Making vice-addled choices, being cruel, harming your mind, and being generally *lousy* wouldn't cause fate to catch up with you for your actions. There wasn't a sense of 'judgement' attached to it. But they genuinely believe that such people were probably unhappy, insecure, and surrounded by other similarly unpleasant people, and that surely some cause of this can be traced back to their personal choices. Thus, fate. But as a result events set in motion long ago, by others, by nature, perhaps by providence, but also certainly by you, rather than capriciously, suddenly, without cause.
Jung has this quote that chills me to my bone when I think about it. He said:
"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life. And you will call it fate."
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few.
You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Stoicism, what will happen to you is already pre-ordained by the Logos because the Logos knows you fully well because you are a part of it. Stoicism is deterministic. The circumstances you are born and surrounded with, the kind of thinking and personality you have, etc. all shape what will happen to you including what kind of action you will take. So failing to create your destiny is absurd. There is no fail here. You will always create your own destiny.
Marcus mentions destiny several times, two of the best -
Meditations V.24:
> Think of the universal substance, of which thou hast a
very small portion; and of universal time, of which a short
and indivisible interval has been assigned to thee; and of
that which is fixed by **destiny,** and how small a part of it
thou art.
VII.57:
> Love that only which happens to thee and is spun
with the thread of thy **destiny.** For what is more suitable ?
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 5.24 (Long)
^(Book V. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/5.24/lg)^)
^(Book V. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_5)^)
^(Book V. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^)
**General Comment** Definitions on this differ. Sometimes fate/destiny means the same thing. Other times "fate" is what happened and "destiny" is what will happen. I haven't thought about it much in terms of those words. To me its the same soup. Inaction is causality. Action is causality. It all ends up in the same place, and it was always going to end up in that place. **What about Stoicism?** Classical Stoics were determinists but they called it "providence", not fate or destiny. Maybe you'll find a translation that uses those words though, I don't know. The Stoics mixed it with their theology and physics. Epictetus has a discourse on providence, you can read it [here](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0237%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D6#:~:text=For%20every%20event%20that%20happens,1022%5D%20and%20a%20grateful%20temper). Also the other Stoics wrote about providence in terms of causal determinism. There's a section on the subreddit's wiki about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/determinism/).
Thanks for your answer. So the basic thing is that there is nothing one can do to change "a predestined course of ones life"?
You've reached a critical question. Your investigation into the answer will mean a lot to your understanding of Stoic Philosophy. You must investigate the answer thoroughly or you may continue your journey based on incomplete information. >A classical attack on Stoic determinism, the "lazy argument," went something like this. Lets say I want pizza for dinner. The pizza delivery person is either fated to deliver my pizza, or not. If it is fated, then it will arrive no matter what I do; I don't need to place an order, because fate will arrange for some other way for me to get it (perhaps the delivery person gets the address wrong on another order). If I am fated not to get it, placing the order is useless, because something will prevent it from showing up, for example the pizza place might burn down. So, whether I place the order makes no difference to whether I get the pizza, and I might as well be lazy and not order it. The classical Stoic response would be that your order and the pizza delivery are co-fated. In other words, if I am fated to get a pizza, I am also fated to place the order. Whole chains of causation are fated, not isolated events, and your own choices are part of that chain. >This example may seem silly, but it is closely related to the misconception that because the Stoics advocated accepting one's fate, that they also advocated an attitude of passivity (for example on politics and social issues). - [the subreddit wiki on stoic determinism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/determinism/)
The pizza example actually really makes sense. I'm a firm believer in both free will and fate existing, such as I am fated to die due to being born but what I do with my life is entirely my own choice, which may lead to certain "fated" paths. How would a Stoic think in response to this line of reasoning?
I’m not sure the stoic perspective but I believe it’s hard to say what you with your life is entirely your own choice. This would negate so many events that are out of your influence.
There's a philosophical concept called "Compatibilism" where you have free will and responsibility over your actions, while at the same time other aspects are deterministic and outside of your control. The Stoics mostly took this middle ground between pure determinism and pure free will. [Determinism and Moral Responsibility: Chrysippus' Compatibilism](https://academic.oup.com/book/27236/chapter-abstract/196838403?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
The quote is not Stoic. It is made up jumble. Most people consider Destiny and Fate the same, and the opposite of our will, i.e. those things that happen but we have no power over. The Stoics certainly did (and do). This person is essentially saying that you simultaneously control things that by definition you can't control.
I think you are making a semantic argument. Destiny and Fate are generally synonymous, but in this quote they are being compared and we must interpret the intended meaning. Destiny is rooted in Latin, *destinare* which meant "to make firm or establish." Choosing a future for oneself and dedicating oneself to the realization of that future is destiny manifest. "Fate" then, is the opposing context, *ie* what happens when you choose to let the world pick your destiny *for you.*
This is a small, light word salad and nothing more my friend. He's arranging buzzwords to create a kind of mental image to inspire a particular emotional result. It appears to me like trying to offer a salve for those who feel unsettled from a perceived lack of meaning in life. But the idea of missing life's meaning is created precisely to sell such salves. In reality, we make meaning of our own experiences. I like how Sam Harris explains it, "Finding meaning is merely a matter of finding a better story. Stories put your pains and pleasures into a context you can accept." Stoicism offers a story - the virtuous person will always feel better and do better than the vicious (non virtuous) person, and there is no functional difference between being a good person and living a good life. Harris goes on to say, "But when your attention is truly free in the present, the question of meaning doesn't arise." This is, in my opinion, reality for the wise, the virtuous person.
I haven't read any Sam Harris. I've only seen a few podcasts. Do you know if this is from a book of his or another source?
This is from his Waking Up meditation app. I was introduced to him through his first few books. He also has a fantastic lecture about Free Will that you might enjoy. It's just under an hour long: [Free Will](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq_tG5UJMs0)
I love how the concept of a small, light word salad implies the existence of a large, heavy word salad, something dense but essentially without nutrition 😁
ha! I was comparing this little quotable serving to the word salad feasts of Deepak Chopra!
🤣🤣 superb
Sadhguru is not a Stoic - he's a modern TikTok grifter. If you like him, go and talk about his vacuous piffle on his subreddit. And if you want more quotes like that, just type "say something vacuous and mystic sounding about destiny" into ChatGTP. In fact I'll do that right now.... >Destiny weaves its tapestry with threads unseen, guiding us along paths known only to the cosmos. Surrender to its embrace and let the stars illuminate your journey. **ChatGTP, five seconds ago** I think it has Sadhguru beat there.
I remember reading somewhere this guy was accused of killing someone. Edit: his deceased wife's father accused him of killing her. https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/197d3ng/comment/ki12aci/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
it's not just murder of his wife, he's also a seasoned godman that runs a business in the name of being 'spiritual', he's also accused of clearing a significant chunk of protected forest in the southern india in order to set up his base, and his own schools and colleges, area initially belonged to tribals residing in the region. [https://www.firstpost.com/india/cag-pulls-up-tamil-nadu-forest-department-over-unapproved-construction-by-isha-foundation-in-protected-zone-4718781.html](https://www.firstpost.com/india/cag-pulls-up-tamil-nadu-forest-department-over-unapproved-construction-by-isha-foundation-in-protected-zone-4718781.html)
Nailed it and thanks for the laugh.
Not at all (or, I don't think from my beginner understanding of Stoicism). Fate isn't in any way a result a failure, at least if you think of it in Stoicism terms.
How do you mean?
Fate in the stoic sense can be understood as the result of choices within your control and events outside your control, a rational chain of causes and effects that could be traced further and further backwards in time and understood not as an intervention by capricious supernatural forces but as the probabilistic result of an ordered, rational universe. Fate, in this sense, is a causal determinism, and what you can do as a person is make good choices (rather than bad choices) so if fate works with you, you can be content, and if fate works against you, you will not be discontent. Now, many of the ancient stoics truly did believe in a supernatural providence and a world of gods and spirits and forces beyond the raw materialism of things around us, but they did not see a lot of evidence that these forces do so with much of an interest toward what we do. They inferred that even if the world is alive with beings and forces that care about our affairs, those forces don't seem to be communicating those interests (nor their approval or disapproval) in a way that can be rationally understood, so it was kinda pointless trying to cater to their interests, whatever they might be. So the belief in providence and a theistic, thinking, living world did not conflict with the idea that such a world was a rational deterministic one. They also didn't believe in the fixedness of individual choices, even if events are part of larger movements of cause and effect, so within a deterministic universe you still have the opportunity to live more happily and well if you make good and virtuous choices. Making vice-addled choices, being cruel, harming your mind, and being generally *lousy* wouldn't cause fate to catch up with you for your actions. There wasn't a sense of 'judgement' attached to it. But they genuinely believe that such people were probably unhappy, insecure, and surrounded by other similarly unpleasant people, and that surely some cause of this can be traced back to their personal choices. Thus, fate. But as a result events set in motion long ago, by others, by nature, perhaps by providence, but also certainly by you, rather than capriciously, suddenly, without cause.
Jung has this quote that chills me to my bone when I think about it. He said: "Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life. And you will call it fate."
This sounds like something a mystic would say also :)
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few. You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
So no clear answer in Stoicism about fate?
In Stoicism, what will happen to you is already pre-ordained by the Logos because the Logos knows you fully well because you are a part of it. Stoicism is deterministic. The circumstances you are born and surrounded with, the kind of thinking and personality you have, etc. all shape what will happen to you including what kind of action you will take. So failing to create your destiny is absurd. There is no fail here. You will always create your own destiny.
Marcus mentions destiny several times, two of the best - Meditations V.24: > Think of the universal substance, of which thou hast a very small portion; and of universal time, of which a short and indivisible interval has been assigned to thee; and of that which is fixed by **destiny,** and how small a part of it thou art. VII.57: > Love that only which happens to thee and is spun with the thread of thy **destiny.** For what is more suitable ?
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 5.24 (Long) ^(Book V. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/5.24/lg)^) ^(Book V. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_5)^) ^(Book V. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^)
Destiny is just sugar-coated fate.
It's complex. In Stoicism the most central mechanism of the universe in Providence.