Fortune vs Fate: What is the Difference?

I would consider this a "Double Post - Sunday" kind of deal, but I think I already used that name, so individual titles it is!

What is the difference between fortune and fate?

While discussing this topic in the classroom, I chimed in, saying, "Fortune has a more positive connotation." Why is that exactly? I suppose its because of the undesirable--and sometimes horrifying--resolutions that are attributed to it in ancient literature. In Oedpius Rex, the main character is "fated" to marry his mother, kill his father, and finally discover the fact the he did it. In grotesque fashion, Oedipus gouges his eyes out at the end of the story. However, there are stories that have "good" fates, such as Odysseus finally coming home. Perhaps fortune has a more positive connotation because it always entails something good, while fate can be either good or bad.

Another argument that could be made is on the aspect of freedom and choice. In a world where "fate" exists, everything is predetermined. There is no changing a series of events, no matter how hard you try. It's a box you cannot escape. In comparison, a world where "fortune" exists implies that events can happen that are out of the ordinary, unexpected. If that is possible, then the capability of impacting outcomes must also be possible. One limits the scope of possibilities, whereas the other allows for an unlimited amount.

I, for one, prefer a life I have direct control over. I don't want to be a cog in a "cosmic machine".

Should Dante's Inferno be Interpreted as a Revenge Fantasy?

Into the fray of blog posts I return, withered from the recent drought. When will I learn my lesson? Eh, probably never. Anyway, a slew of topics has appeared after our very own Dante's Inferno presentation was finally showcased to the class. With a healthy bunch of Christians at our disposal, the debate was alive and everything I could have hoped for.

Time for the question: "Should Dante's Inferno be interpreted as a revenge fantasy?"

At first glance, the answer seems obvious: Of course it's a revenge fantasy, for he places so many of his ideological opponents, enemies, and critics in the depths of hell, brutally tortured. The thought of those people getting their "just due" must have been cathartic for Alighieri, especially since he was exiled from his homeland and family.

To as much of my own surprise as your own, I will attempt to formulate an argument against that notion.

I think the usage of people Alighieri despised is symbolic in some way, countering the idea of simple "revenge". In spite of him depicting their suffering as deserved and painful, he actively goes to converse with some of them. What could this mean? He may be implying that, despite the hatred you may harbor for your enemies, you should still try to understand why they are who they are. This could act as reinforcement for the theme of "returning to the straight path".

If you search for a deeper meaning in the text as I did, you will see why the limited label of "revenge fantasy" is undeserved, especially in the case of a complex poem like Inferno. There are many layers that make this text more than what this label entails.

The Flash Existed 1400 Years Ago?

For the past few days, our class has been focusing on the Qu'ran, the holy book of Islam. Its origins and how quickly it pervaded major regions of the world sparked my interest.

The question (I believe it was proposed by Mr. Sanderson) is "Why did Islam spread so quickly?"

Within a span of twenty-two years (610-632 AD), Islam became a religious powerhouse, enveloping nearly the entire Middle East. What was the cause of such incredible speed? Since there is no concrete answer, I will offer my own. I proclaim that the speed is mostly due to the loathing of the Christian world and a craving to completely separate themselves from it, even rivaling it. Imagine you are an individual among one of the scattered villages of ancient Saudi Arabia--living during the time of Muhammad. The people, there, have already labeled themselves as "other than Christian", but there is no unity, no identity to be a part of. Then, a man, a charismatic one at that, comes to your village, with many of his followers in tow, and declares that he received religious visions and directions from a god. Now that is something to get behind! No longer will you feel pressure from the enormous Christian entity near you, for you have a religion of your own. Muhammad's visits became a snowball effect of religious zeal, gathering the disunified Middle East and combining it into a singular identity. The reason people joined in troves was because of the widespread belief that they were the "others"; they wanted to be different from the Christian world.

Art vs Nature

Recently, the class has been subjected to a multitude of presentations on famous pieces of literature. One such presentation, on Ovid's Metamorphoses introduced a question that raised my eyebrows: "Does art exceed nature when referring to beauty?"

At first I thought, "Yes! After all, art can be manipulated however you want, even displaying what lacks existence in reality." However, I quickly retracted that claim. The perspective I originally pursued targeted only the visual aspect of beauty, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what everyone else focused on as well.

In my opinion, beauty is much more than the visual aspect, including what that visual makes you feel inside. Nature has something that art lacks: physical, external sensation. Beauty does not have to be restricted to what we see; instead, it can be defined by how it stimulates each and all of our senses. I find walking on the beach--feeling the salty breeze on my neck and hot sand on my feet--is more beautiful than a picture on a wall, no matter how enhanced the visual may be.