The Mystery Of Human Destiny

The mystery of destiny remains one which every man faces during his earthly existence. Life holds a spiritual meaning, apart from the sensual and material pleasures it provides man. The journey of our life keeps throwing challenges which raise questions as to what actually controls our lives. Sometimes life throws shit at us when we least expect it to happen.

We can’t control everything in our lives, even if our control itself might be great to begin with. Sometimes, we have to make the best in what circumstances we find ourselves in—even if we may not want to be in those to begin with.

What controls destiny: predestination or free will?

Man was destined to have free will. – Hal Lee Luyah

Philosophers and great thinkers have always tried to unravel the secrets of human destiny since antiquity. Whether freedom or predestination controls human destiny is one of the most frequently asked questions among humanity— more so because of man’s innate and great concern for freedom.


The questions which one asks when faced with the concept of predestination are:

  • Are all our actions and fates really predestined?
  • If every thing we do is predestined, then where does that put the concept of good and evil – when we don’t seem to have the power to change our intentions and actions? Should we held accountable for our deeds and morality, then?


The arguments for the existence of predestination often threaten the notion of human freedom in life, which itself seems distasteful for the rational mind. But at the same time, disregarding the presence of predestination in human destiny altogether also seems a flawed approach, if we take human history in regard. Free will thus seems to provide the way out.


Reading through the scriptures of most religions, one would indeed find a lot of prophecies, sometimes about the appearance of important men and events during various time periods. Now these prophecies would’ve been fulfilled (or may be fulfilled in the future)—but the fact remains as many of these prophecies have been fulfilled, life does seem reveal the phenomena of predestination.

It does baffle the mind when one thinks about how some of these prophecies came true – sometimes across centuries. If mankind’s destiny was totally undecided and unknown – totally subject to free will—then how did these prophecies come true?


The war between what influences destiny is a debate which remains baffling to humanity as ever. Arguments like the argument from free will and the dilemma of determinism are just a few examples of the numerous theories expounded to highlight the superiority of free will over predestination, or vice versa. Nevertheless, the logical approach seems to be adopting a middle ground between both, for both beliefs hold caveats.

A simple example to show how belief in either philosophy pushed too far can muddle a man’s mindset

Both theories will hold caveats, especially when pushed too far, for they can easily lead men into a blue pill world of illusionary thinking which holds nothing but disappointment in the end. There could be numerous examples to illustrate how both can affect men’s lives.

Belief: “Women can’t be changed, and can’t go against their nature. Thus it’s better to be with a woman (no matter how low-life she might be), than to be without a woman at all.”

I’ve heard a lot of men say this to justify their choice to sexually scavenge or choose sub standard women in their lives. This statement, reeking of defeatist fatalism, usually leads to the defeatist acceptance that women might not be able to control themselves at all, which might lead men to lower their expectations, standards and demands from women – because women are supposedly ‘predestined’ to fail men.

Indeed, women are not perfect—and they have lowered their value even more by sub-standard behavior in today’s feminist societies. But accepting that should not mean at the same time that men are disposable. Is a woman’s life, her needs and expectations, more valuable than a man’s? Definitely not.

But this defeatist “acceptance” —stemming from a convoluted self interpretation of predestination—affects a lot of men, not only when it comes to women, but also to other aspects of their lives, whether it may be in their careers, friendships, or other relationships. Acceptance should in no way mean lowering your expectations or the bar for others in your life. It’s important to be qualified in your life, but at the same time see that others also qualify themselves to be a part of your life.


At the same time, pushing the concept of free will too far can distort a man’s thinking to push him into a blue pill world, without even him realizing it. Every a supposedly “rational” theory like that of free will could become limiting when it is practiced without moderation. One such example is below:

Belief: “NAWALT – Every woman is different

This is an example of free will driven thinking when pushed too far – even though it might not appear at first. This belief basically exonerates every woman by assuming she would totally function to logic and proper use of her free will, basically ignoring the true nature of women.

The refusal to understand women with the known frailties of female nature usually ends up in disappointment for men when women exercise their free will negatively, because sometimes we are socially programmed to believe that free will is more “rational” than predestination itself. Even if that might be logically true, can a leopard change its spots?

Either ways, the end result seems to be that both free will and predestination cannot single handedly provide answers for the questions of the human mind and the problems of human life.



As one penetrates deeper into the worlds of predestination and free will, one realizes that human destiny seems to be affected equally by both of them. Our deeds and thoughts are indeed indirectly influenced by them.

The solution remains to take the red pill to evaluate both theories critically, adopting an unbiased approach, But even if both might affect our destinies, it makes sense to maintain a mindset unaffected completely. Moderation in every aspect of life is praiseworthy; and the same applies to the intellectual mindset how we utilize to unravel the mysteries of life—for that is one of the hallmarks of self mastery.

Read Next: Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?

77 thoughts on “The Mystery Of Human Destiny”

  1. Great article, Oscar, as always. I think that we have destinies, but that in many ways we choose them. Going back to what you said about prophecy, I believe that we choose all our actions (free will), but that God always knew we were going to make those choices (destiny). In a sense, what we do was always going to happen, but we largely made it happen, if that makes sense.

  2. is it just a coincidence that happiness and success point in the complete opposite direction? ;D

        1. No, go out side and enjoy the day (that’s where I’m headed but enjoying my coffee now).
          That was a great exchange. We don’t always have to pithy and brilliant. Just every now and then.

    1. Pulse,
      The great Woody Allen film “Broadway Danny Rose” addresses that very issue. An awesome film it is too.

    2. The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downward. To have done anything by which you earned money merely is to have been truly idle or worse. If the laborer gets no more than the wages which his employer pays him, he is cheated, he cheats himself. If you would get money as a writer or lecturer, you must be popular, which is to go down perpendicularly.
      Life Without Principle; H.D. Thoreau

      1. How does that not apply to philosophers or any other form of success? Ultimately we’re social beings, you cannot be successful or even get by in society without some form of social approval. The Hermit may get by, but if everybody becomes a hermit then civilization goes away (and not just ours, even the great ones). What then? Civilization itself is wrong?
        I adore Thoreau but at the end of the day he was a spoiled rich boy who went camping a bit while returning home when convenient. His observations are relevant but only within a certain context.

        1. “How does that not apply to philosophers or any other form of success?”
          In monetary terms, it does.
          “Ultimately we’re social beings . . .”
          Which Henry agreed with, counting society as one of the fundamental needs. He never even tried to be a hermit.
          It has been noted that Melville, even while living in a city, was far more of a hermit than Thoreau ever was.
          “His observations are relevant but only within a certain context.”
          Indeed. And part of the context of this particular essay is that it retained only the criticism. It’s even more tooth and claw than Civil Disobedience.

      2. “To have done anything by which you earned money merely is to have been truly idle or worse. If the laborer gets no more than the wages which his employer pays him, he is cheated, he cheats himself.”
        this. when im congratulated on some small sidejob`s, it doesnt feel great. in fact, it feels like losing. i get money, yes, but i give the employer a far more precious currency: time. if you can somewhat improve yourself at such a job its worth it, but most sidejobs doesnt offer this. i cant wait for the day i dont need them anymore, since its not even idle.

  3. The use of the term “free” in “free will” is an interesting construct. The concept of “will” stands alone. “Will” by common definition is necessarily free. I occasionally use the term “willfully ignorant” to describe people who purposefully ignore fact.
    The term “free” helps conceptualize the nature of will.
    Thought provoking essay, thanks.

  4. I think we need to be extremley careful who we call “great thinkers” and “philosophers”. The used quotes, especially the one by the novelist Fowles, are corny cliches.

    1. There’s the reason Plato is said to have wanted all artists and poets exiled from Athens: because philosophers deal with ideas rationally and logically, while artists and poets wrap ideas in emotional charges, which distorts them.

      1. Marcus Aurelius,
        True, however, most 20th Century Brit&American poets do not even know what they are wrapping up. Most think they are “wrapping” up a mimetic reality or an empirical fact. Yes, they are a confused bunch… After Nietzsche I think the post-human distinction we must delineate is Teacher vs. Philosopher, rather than Poet vs Philosopher. Unfortunately, I feel artists are no longer worth a thinking man’s time.

  5. Unsolicited advice for my ROK brethren re John Fowles:
    Never heed the advice from a man in a tweed jacket.

    1. Don’t stick your hand in the fire, garbage disposal, or badger hole.
      (It’s a 70 year old McGregor I inherited from my stepfather. Except for some moth holes it doesn’t look a day over 2. It might be worth the trouble and expense to have them professionally repaired, because they just don’t make them like this any more)

        1. And if you’re from Australia and New Zealand, never yell “Where’s Paul Hester?” in a Crowded House concert.

    2. Yes, always take advice from guys with pants hanging off their butts, wearing Nike Frankenstein shoes, and orange shirts that look like prison costumes :o)

      1. Not sure I understand your comment with a smiley face at the end. I was startled by Fowles condemnation of individual optimism. Like some many leftists, he wanted to dampen and then control society because he lacked any real knowledge of man and society.

  6. psychologists such as Wegner have provided evidence as to why free will may be an illusion, at least not necessarily in support of pre-determination but rather in support of unconscious decision making that gets rationalised after the (actual) event by the conscious mind (think hamster if you like) that gives us the desired impression of being in control. In other words if you decide to consciously do something, chances are this reflects a lower level of processing that has already happened. This does not mean though that acting as if one were free were not infinitely superior to acting as though one were helpless and determined (as in ‘learned helplessness’) which will have a self-destructive effect. In other words self-deception here is causally advantageous. Acting as though one were free still promotes a kind of freedom.

    1. The Turing Test does not depend upon what goes on inside the computer.
      I’m not an anti-reductionist, but I’m not so foolish as to ignore the system either. If the black box output is indistinguishable from free will, I suspect he may not be taking some element of the system into account.

      1. not sure I’m qualified to comment on that. A turing machine is about input / computation / output as I understand it. If a computational metaphor is the correct one here then the first thing to consider would be what device we’re dealing with, or whether we have more than one computational device say working in parallel. If you have unconscious processing that results in a decision that could be either deterministic or made on some other basis (random, quantum ? ) but the rationalisation after the event aspect could be quite another computational device – or some illusion of consciousness that could be either ‘steam’ or a part of the machine itself. I.e. we may be talking about a single brain or something with dedicated modules, engaged in parallel / serial processing. To be honest I don’t pretend to understand it

        1. “If a computational metaphor is the correct one. . .”
          I didn’t invoke a computational metaphor, I invoked a black box metaphor. The point being that conclusions made about the inner workings of the box have to be compatible with the output of the box. If they are not, your conclusions have been shown to be incorrect.
          I have argued that the computational model is not correct, which is why AI has proved to be a much harder nut to crack than was predicted 50 years ago when the computational model was simply assumed as an axiom.
          And as Wegner is doing, at least to some extent.
          On observing the output of the black box I note that it is not entirely random. It is constrained.
          But within the range of those constraints the output can be entirely unpredictable, which is not compatible with a reflexive model.
          That doesn’t at all imply that his work is invalid, merely that it may be incomplete, as, say, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation turned out to be a local variant of the law.

        2. “I didn’t invoke a computational metaphor, I
          invoked a black box metaphor.”
          I would have thought that a Turing test implies computation even if computational models can’t explain human consciousness etc (as yet). As for the idea that the inner workings of a black box have to be compatible with the output of the box I find myself unsure of how to define the problem. What is the output of the box in the first place that we are talking about? : the sense of being a free-decision-making-agent or simply the decision made? If it’s the latter, then Wegner’s research suggests that we may be talking about a different black box to the one we think we’re talking about. It would be like having two computers working side by side hooked up to a single screen. We think the output comes from computer A,
          but there’s a possibility it comes from computer B. Reflexivity then comes into it as something that involves us processing outputs from B as though they were outputs from A. In a sense this would be like the Chinese room problem where the point would be to convince the person behind the screen that you were talking Chinese while not being able to speak Chinese, but
          nonetheless managing to convince yourself the whole time that you really could talk Chinese.

        3. No, it implies only that an artificial construct, a machine, is involved in the test. It doesn’t imply anything about the operation of the machine.
          ” . . . the Chinese room problem where the point would be to convince the person behind the screen that you were talking Chinese while not being able to speak Chinese . . .”
          Richard Feynman once passed that test in face to face conversation with a Chinese speaker. In fact, she withdrew from the test in embarrassment because, “I only speak Cantonese. He speaks Mandarin!”

        4. turing machines are hypothetical, turing tests are concerned with outputs not the mechanics behind those outputs, fine. But we still haven’t agreed what outputs we’re talking about, i.e. what the test would be measuring.
          The Feynman anecdote illustrates the importance of agreeing beforehand what is being measured and how it is to be measured (as well as the fact that he was a smartarse)

        5. In this case the black box is human psychology and its outputs are human behaviour. What I am measuring is the hypothesis “Human behaviour is reflexive.”
          I’m hunting black swans. I find them in unpredictability.
          There are insects whose behaviour is reflexive, and once you understand their psychology, by applying the correct stimuli you can operate them as if they were machines. In fact, they’re being used as models for creating simple autonomous robots. The AI folk, after decades of working to emulate the human brain, have decided that maybe they should have started by emulating something simpler, like the cockroach brain, first.
          “The Feynman anecdote illustrates the importance of agreeing beforehand what is being measured . . .”
          The test was single blind, done because Feynman was a smartarse. A practical joke to catch him out in a weakness. It was arranged that the woman come to a party that Feynman was going to attend and she ambushed him, simply walked up to him and started talking to him in Cantonese.
          Feynman, being a smartarse, just took the situation and went with the flow.
          What he actually did was try to repeat back what she had said as best he could.

        6. I’ve heard about remote control cockroaches. Humans are less easily to control even if
          they are easy enough to influence. The revelation – if it is true – that the unconscious mind makes decisions – which the conscious mind claims credit for – makes us easier rather than harder to manipulate perhaps.
          As for black swans these appear to be unpredictable events of a certain magnitude – like 911 say – that may lead to a certain ‘hindsight bias’ after the event? So for you we are dealing here with very different levels of complexity with consequently opposing levels of predictability?

    2. @Michael in a test done with people deciding when they would get up from a chair spontaneously, the brain activity associated with that decision occurred before our conscious minds ‘decided’ that a person would stand up.

    3. The illusion of freedom.I guess that if this makes you feel better and want to go on living(in a fool’s paradise) then it may be good.All of these traits that a human (and animal) has are survival mechanisms so that we reproduce and keep the race alive.Whether this has any purpose in the grand scheme of things is questionable.
      ‘this reflects a lower level of processing that has already happened’
      That appears to be correct.

  7. Either ways, the end result seems to be that both free will and predestination cannot single handedly provide answers for the questions of the human mind and the problems of human life.

    I disagree. Men have the free will of gods and women have the free will of parasites. Explains everything one needs to know.
    But as always: The middle path is the correct approach:

      1. Why aren’t these posts by this cunt deleted?
        If anyone knows of anyone who posts “I made money on google” in real life, please shoot them. We need a mass genocide on these cunts.

      2. As you seem to have an ever increasing disposable income could you do us a loan? Or lend us the Lotus next weekend?

    1. Do you butthurt sex starved boys really believe this crap? I know that not being chosen by the female and your lack of sex, or lack of sex with anything above a 2, can be disheartening but apparently it has made you all completely irrational.
      Get out and socialise with females, something you should have been doing since you were in kindergarten, and turn off that nasty porn that you spend 100 hrs a week watching. Real females are not going to behave like these porn prostitutes in their fake edited sex acts or are real females going to do the queer things that you fantasise about like gay butt fucking(are your dicks really this small?)

      1. Actually, Marcus, most men here (well, at least half) have had more interactions with females than your average bear… hence why we’re here. The more women you fuck, the more women you talk to, the more women you see being little, irrational children who are only able to think emotionally and are unable to admit they are ever wrong or that they have a very short shelf life and are only good for sex and will use their cunts for jewelry… the more men like us look down on them.
        The more you hear shit like, “Men are rapists” despite the fact there has been more than one female rapist in the history of time (in fact, there have been tonnes), the more you hear “Men are pedophiles” despite the fact there has been more than one female pedophile in the history of time (in fact, there have been tonnes), the more you have to scratch your head and ask yourself, “Just how fucking dumb are these cunts?”

  8. John Calvin wrote of the free actions of men that were foreordained by God. The idea that God is sovereign over reality and yet not the author of evil is a little difficult for the finite creature to comprehend. If one accepts the premise of an infinite God, it not to difficult to accept the incomprehensibility for a greater good and purpose.

  9. We have free will within our biological constraints . Person with an IQ of 90 has the free will to work at McDonald’s, but has no shot becoming a physicist, for example.

    1. I can think of 3 examples of low IQ guys that made a killing in business. Of course they are not the norm but there many forms of intelligence independent of IQ, and other factors such as courage and tenacity that can propel a man to success. On the reverse side I have known many higher IQ people that have struggled mightily through life. Of course this is anecdotal and my opinion only but I have also found physically attractive people with high average to low bright intelligence to do the best in life. At least as far as material success is concerned.

  10. Look at the depth of intellectual discussion on this thread. Superb. Look for a similar discussion on any feminist/woman/MSM site. Absent.
    We’re going to win this war gentleman. Great thread.

    1. Shhh. The enemy thinks we’re all a bunch of misogynistic, overweight but fat shaming, white knight hating, social outcasts living in our mother’s basements, Might be best not to calibrate their paradigm too quickly… hehe.

    2. You know how Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason takes more than five minutes to read and doesn’t have pictures after every paragraph? You’re either trolling or genuinely think intellectual conversation resembles an intro to philosophy course at a community college.

        1. Were you taught logical argumentation by reading the comments section? Go ahead, post a reaction gif because you “can’t even.”

        2. Honestly guy, I have no interest in your need to lock horns. You want to snark, you can snark. Not my problem. You need to reply, you reply, I won’t read.

  11. This man speaks the truth. We cannot view women fully in either light but in a mixture of both through the lens of red pill; when we best understand the paths that women may take, we can better preempt where they will go. Therefore we may yet place ourselves in their path and lead them back to docility, obedience, submission and true femininity.

    1. The ones with half a brain want autonomy and it’s up to Men to ensure that these women in particular are kept under heel at all costs. Only dumb cunts want to breed these days and we’re decimating our species by allowing it to happen. Nothing could be a greater act towards humanity than destroying the career and educational prospects of all women. There are many ways this can be achieved legally and I would suggest that all Men take the lead on driving the herd back to the kitchen’s they’ve abdicated.

  12. There is no human destiny – life just is. There is no predestination and there is no free will.

  13. “Women can’t be changed, and can’t go against their nature. Thus it’s better to be with a woman (no matter how low-life she might be), than to be without a woman at all.” The premise and the response here just make no sense at all.

  14. “Is a woman’s life, her needs and expectations, more valuable than a man’s? Definitely not”.
    Until she is carrying your child in her womb. Fucking idiotic. Ever seen a woman give birth? And I’m not talking cesarian here.

      1. When she is pregnant, her needs and expectations are more important – you ever carried a child or given birth? Besides that, her needs and expectations are probably not more valuable than a man’s. But who says anyone’s needs or expectations are important anyway?

        1. Do what you must to keep the package warm and dry. But bite your tongue if you have to and refrain from unwittingly saying ”WE’RE pregnant” when introducing yourselves to a red piller.
          It is more appropriate in public for her to rub her belly while SHE announces ”she’s pregnant” while you perhaps reach to massage your balls while you focus on an interesting aircraft flying high above for example.

        2. Firstly you asked “ever seen a woman give birth”. I answered in the positive. Now you escalate and ask “you ever carried a child or given birth?” Of course I haven’t, I have a pair of balls. Something I would wager you are sorely lacking, metaphorically speaking of course.
          And as for her needs I would put the childs survival above that of the mother. I know it sounds bad but nature is as nature does.

        3. “I know it sounds bad but nature is as nature does” -which makes no sense as it generally does not involve exclusion of the mother. I looked over a lot of your posts, and you just hate women. I would wager that you have no balls, and you have absolutely no idea how to deal with women which makes you feel impotent and therefore you rage. They’ve probably used you because you are a loser.

        4. Ha ha, looking over my previous posts….I am what you say I am if that makes you feel better about yourself. Your statements demonstrate your ignorance of the natural world.
          Keep telling yourself such things. You are drawing many conclusions.
          What makes you able to judge me on my previous posts? Reverting to the usual criticisms, question my sexual performance, etc. You are so predictable its not even funny.
          It will not change the truth of the matter. Unfortunately for you I am very happy where I am in life and no amount of your immature vitriol will change me. I have very big balls. I have impregnated 2 women and have remained unmarried. They were very happy to have my brood. Impotent? What have you done?
          Now go away and live your mediocre life somewhere else beta bitch boy…. mediocrity is your past, present and future…..

        5. Ironic – you judged me on my post. You impregnated two women? So are you one of those irresponsible cunts that skirts responsibility and has women and kids living off welfare? “immature Vitriol?” I think you started that ball rolling, not I.

        6. Welfare? Not in the slightest…. never used it….I’m worth at least €5 million….
          At least I haven’t stooped to name calling. Calling me a cunt? Are you an sjw? Marxist? Homosexual? Leftist? Bullied at school?
          I’m bringing up my sons to ridicule betas like you….. your insecurities are showing…. and there are many…..

  15. This is the kind of work that makes ROK relevant and a winner. My thanks and kudos to the author. The Norman Cousins quote matches my beliefs best. I would change it a bit however. Sometimes you can get a new hand and it just might be a better one.

  16. Am I alive or thoughts that drift away
    Does summer come for everyone
    Can humans do as prophets say
    And if I die before I learn to speak
    Can money pay for all the days I lived awake
    But half asleep…..
    -Standing Outside A Broken Telephone Booth With Money In My Hand, (Primitive Radio Gods)

  17. There’s no such thing as free will. What we believe we choose is just programming by our DNA. Even Shakespeare knew this. He may not have understood what DNA was but people certainly knew what breeding was from working with animals for the past 5k years.
    “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”(DNA)

    1. “Genetic Determinism” I saw an interview with a Geneticists, that, after many years stated that while genes play a role the mind can actually make a significant change. You have to make a conscience effort to change your thinking, lifestyle and diet. This is called Epigenetic’s.

  18. Oh Fowles. If any of these pickup boys living in their cellars ever won the lottery they’d likely turn into Freddie Clegg lol

  19. I think we are nothing special in this world and the life has no purpose. We are the ones who choose purpose. We are the top animals because of our brains and thats it. Alpha, beta, living on the street, living in house with pool and alpha romeo, famous, anti-social, whatever… YOU WILL DIE ANYWAY. So its the best reason to do what you like no matter what others say or think. Although theres one rule which is helpful and profitable in many ways: treat others like you want to be treated.

  20. You can ask a very simple question to yourself – Have you ever done anything without any reasons? The answer invariably will be – no,never. That means your past reasons controlled your present action. So you do not have freewill. Thus the definition of destiny is – past controls the present. Take a look at the destiny chapter in the free book at

  21. “Either ways, the end result seems to be that both free will and predestination cannot single handedly provide answers for the questions of the human mind and the problems of human life.”
    But truth is unique and universal, because laws of nature are the only truths. Thus there is no possibility of any kind of philosophy. Laws of nature are created by the objects of nature and their characteristics. One very important characteristics of nature is that it always demonstrates its laws for us to observe and learn about them. But we must be a seeker; we must be a Galileo to find it. Take a look at the free book on Soul Theory at
    Have you ever done anything without any reasons? No, never. But your reasons come before you act. That means your past controls your present – which is the definition of destiny. This also means you do not or cannot have freewill at the present moment. Freewill is an illusion.
    Nature also demonstrates the law of destiny. There are about 800,000 palm leaf booklets, in India, written about 10,000 years back describing the details of destiny for that many people living now in our world. These books provide many details of your life such as, when you came to see these books, with whom you came, your name, country of origin, family background etc. You may want to review the destiny chapter of the above book. The destiny theory gives a proof of existence of souls.
    There is a concept called eternal recurrence, also described in Bible, and made popular by the German philosopher Nietzsche, which says you have lived this exact same life many times in the past and will continue living in the future. Thus the universe has a destiny too.

Comments are closed.