The Difference Between Fate and Destiny, Especially in Matters of Love.

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Pavlos Maros

Well-Known Member
Pronouns
He/Him/His
"My friend said he believes in fate, and I said So you've never loved your wife. He replied What do you mean?"

At first glance, fate and destiny might seem like interchangeable concepts, both suggesting that certain outcomes are predetermined or meant to be. But when it comes to matters of the heart, the distinction between these two ideas reveals something profound about the nature of love, choice, and personal responsibility.

Consider someone who says, "I was fated to be with you, I never had a choice." While this might sound romantic on the surface, it carries a troubling implication. If our relationships are purely the result of fate, fixed, unchangeable, and beyond our control, then what does that say about the authenticity of our love?
Fate strips away agency from what should be one of our most meaningful decisions. It transforms love from an active choice into a passive inevitability. "I was fated to meet you" becomes less a celebration of connection and more an abdication of responsibility. If you had no control over falling in love, then the love itself becomes less valuable, less genuine. It suggests you never truly chose your partner, circumstances simply dragged you along a predetermined path.

Destiny, however, offers a fundamentally different framework. When someone believes "it's my destiny to be with you," they're expressing something far richer and more complex. Destiny implies purpose and meaning while still preserving the crucial element of human agency. It suggests that while certain connections or paths may be meaningful and meant to be, we still have a vital role in how they unfold.
A person who believes in destiny might say, "I feel we're meant to be together, and I choose every day to love you well." This perspective honours both the sense that some relationships feel extraordinarily right while still requiring ongoing choice, effort, and genuine commitment. Destiny doesn't eliminate free will, it enhances the significance of how we exercise it.

The difference comes down to control and agency. Fate positions us as passengers on a predetermined train, powerless to influence our journey's direction. Destiny, by contrast, makes us copilots of our own meaningful journey. We may have a sense of where we're headed, but how we get there, and how well we navigate the path, remains fundamentally up to us.
This distinction matters enormously in how we approach our relationships. If love is fate, then we bear no responsibility for nurturing it, protecting it, or choosing it anew each day. But if love is destiny, then we become active participants in fulfilling something meaningful while retaining the power to honour or neglect that calling.

In the end, the difference between fate and destiny isn't merely semantic, it's deeply personal and profoundly practical. Fate may offer the comfort of inevitability, but it comes at the cost of diminishing our most cherished choices. Destiny offers something better: the sense that our connections matter deeply while preserving the agency that makes our love authentic and our commitment meaningful.

The question isn't whether we're meant to be with someone, it's whether we choose, each day, to be worthy of that meaning.

What do you think? Are you destined or fated?
 
Therein lies an enigma ... what if that line of progression is not fixed but quite dicey because of uncertainty factor of what's beyond us. As in one interpretation of "incarnate" what if the destination is not forming as it previously appeared ... thus the shroud of pall ... appalling observation that it passed when we were in a distracted condition because of addictions?

A late friend once said "and this too will pass" like everything else ... in one side the skull and out the other because we believed we didn't need to know any more ... and so any thought of control of the entire collective is lost to the mistaken one believing he is the greatest leader. Leads to the fall of limited leaders as a mortal factor ...

In short what we know and are capable of directing is so small compared to what is beyond our reach. All we can destroy here is self and what we stand on st*te or ast ute failure. Do republican empires stand in the face of disrespecting the demos? Consider the different republican tiers ...

NB: stute is a complex word from Nordic on study, etude and something of female spectre that is not well defined, but a bit horsey ... Shimmery?

I drift towards that creature coming from Blue Rock Montana! Respect it ... do not interfere ... as a destiny that will exhaust you ...
 
Interestingly, this ties back to some of our past conversations about Calvinism. Calvinism teaches predestination, which is basically your "destiny". God has chosen who will be saved (Context: in Calvinist thought, all humans are inherently sinful and undeserving so no one can save themselves) so your destination, be it heaven or hell, is already chosen. But it does not teach predeterminism, which is basically your "fate". God has chosen whether you will be saved, but not how you'll ultimately get where you're going.

But for me, I have always kind of split the difference. Who we are and where we end up is a mix of factors, many of which we do not control, some of which we do. So I do not believe in either fate or destiny (and I'm assuming your definitions here, but we could quibble about those) in the sense of our life path being 100% determined or predictable. We might have a general sense of where we belong but there are too many random (well, unpredictable, not necessarily truly random), external factors for an individual to have to have a predictable fate or destiny save one: We all end up dead. Yeah, that's a bit dark and morbid for a Wednesday morning, but it is true.

My life is a good example. I mean, there is no way me at 18 could have predicted my current career, who I married, or how a lot of things in my life shook out. It's just quite different from what I would have expected based on where I was entering adulthood. I could unpack that more but would end up writing my memoirs. :giggle: There's just so many things that happened to get me here, some of which were decisions I made, some of which were decisions others made, some of which (like my mother's early death and my father's dementia) just happened. So I tend to think of life as the sum of what happens to us, not as some grand ultimate destination or path. We control what we can, we deal with the rest, and our destiny is what comes out of all that.

I do get why people believe in fate and destiny, though. I mean, look at my marriage. We grew up on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean (Canada and China) in very different circumstances (I had a quiet, comfortable middle class Canadian upbringing, she weathered the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution). The chain of events needed to even put us in the same place at the same time so we could meet seems incredibly unlikely so the idea that some cosmic force, be it a sapient deity or just an impersonal force of nature like Greek Fate or Indian karma, brought it about feels very plausible if I think about it too hard.

(Of course, this all also has one wondering about how this plays out in a hypothetical multiverse. Is there a timeline where I did not meet my wife? Is there a timeline where I took a different path out of university or in my career? And so on. But that's all fun speculation. We have what we have and hypotheticals don't really help with the present reality.)
 
Sometimes I wonder which one of my three husbands will be mine in heaven. Assuming that I don't black widow this one also, and there's a #4, godde forbid.

Love is totally a choice. I don't think the initial attraction is any sort of choice, but once pheromones have established that attraction is possible, one's choices determine half of what happens in a relationship. So I would trend towards destiny (potential, hopefulness), over fate (helplessness, hopelessness). My life has sorta played that out. Got married way too young for many of the wrong reasons, but two of my children are his, and they're wonderful, so perhaps more fate in that one. But my staying married for 13 years was a choice, as was the choice to remain in close relationship with his family, thus giving my kids loving and close cousin relationships. Met husband #3 between 1 and 2, but it was the wrong time for us. Totally disparate work/career paths coupled with my huge responsibilities for kids and mother. And so I chose "not", "then", but when life served the choice up to me under changed circumstances, I've happily said yes.
 
What do you think? Are you destined or fated?
A question/paradox that has plagued humanity from the beginning of philosophy.

Fate, involves past or present situations that are beyond my control or choice.

Destiny, despite limitations around past or present situations, involves that I exercise my free will.

At minimum, I have to choose what my attitude towards the situations will be.

To love (or not to love) was destined when it came to choosing my life partners.

To love the children born out of those choices was fated - out of my control?
 
A question/paradox that has plagued humanity from the beginning of philosophy.

Fate, involves past or present situations that are beyond my control or choice.

Destiny, despite limitations around past or present situations, involves that I exercise my free will.

At minimum, I have to choose what my attitude towards the situations will be.

To love (or not to love) was destined when it came to choosing my life partners.

To love the children born out of those choices was fated - out of my control?
I think you're creating a false distinction here. If you chose to have children, whether through planning or by deciding to continue an unplanned pregnancy, then the love you feel for them isn't 'fated' at all. It flows directly from your choices. The child is part of you and your partner, created through decisions you made together.

The intensity or immediacy of parental love doesn't make it fate any more than intense romantic love is fate. You chose your partner, you chose (at some point) to become a parent, and your love for your child emerges from those foundational choices. Even if conception was accidental, the decision to keep and raise the child is still a choice that creates the foundation for that love.
Both types of love stem from human agency, just at different points in the timeline.

The original argument about destiny over fate holds for both relationships. We're not passive recipients of predetermined emotions; we actively create the conditions for the love we experience.
 
Is motherly love always automatic?
That's a perfect response to Whyczar. If parental love were truly 'fated' as they suggest, then it would indeed always be automatic. But as you pointed out, it's not, some mothers struggle to bond, some experience postpartum depression that affects their ability to feel immediate love, and we all recognize that good parenting requires ongoing choice and effort.
This supports the original argument that meaningful love, whether for partners or children, emerges from our choices rather than from fate. Whyczar's distinction between 'fated' child love and 'destined' partner love breaks down when we acknowledge that even the supposedly most 'natural' form of love still requires agency and decision making.
 
If you decide to love someone unconditionally though, that decision runs deeply enough that it becomes automatic (fate?) and not a conscious choice ( destiny?). Maybe brains get rewired for it and it feels out of our control, like our autonomic nervous system (any good studies on love and autonomic nervous system function?). Maybe it very nearly becomes out of our control due to brain wiring, like an instinct - the way “home” becomes home - despite problems that arise and things that need repair - even though purely rationally it’s just a structure with furniture and stuff, and one or more people occupying rooms in it. It unconditionally feels like home, until it doesn’t because you need to move to a different place (and bring along or establish familiar things so it feels like home) - but you might have a forever (fated) memory of an earlier home that’s always priority “home base” in your mind - a kind of unconditional love for it. Sometimes more than one place in your mind is a home base that you have a type of love for that feels fated. That goes for the familiarity of place of origin - hometown, environment. There’s a kind of love that subconsciously plants roots there. Ditto for unconditional love for “loved ones” who’ve passed on. Maybe unconditional love is more instinctual, or easier to take root in some than others. Especially those who know what safety and care feels like. If not, it might be much more effort to get there. Though some seem to have it in their natures despite very hard knock lives.
 
Last edited:
If you decide to love someone unconditionally though, that decision runs deeply enough that it becomes automatic (fate?) and not a conscious choice ( destiny?). Maybe brains get rewired for it and it feels out of our control, like our autonomic nervous system (any good studies on love and autonomic nervous system function?). Maybe it very nearly becomes out of our control due to brain wiring, like an instinct - the way “home” becomes home - despite problems that arise and things that need repair - even though purely rationally it’s just a structure with furniture and stuff, and one or more people occupying rooms in it. It unconditionally feels like home, until it doesn’t because you need to move to a different place (and bring along or establish familiar things so it feels like home) - but you might have a forever (fated) memory of an earlier home that’s always priority “home base” in your mind - a kind of unconditional love for it. Sometimes more than one place in your mind is a home base that you have a type of love for that feels fated. That goes for the familiarity of place of origin - hometown, environment. There’s a kind of love that subconsciously plants roots there. Ditto for unconditional love for “loved ones” who’ve passed on. Maybe unconditional love is more instinctual, or easier to take root in some than others. Especially those who know what safety and care feels like. If not, it might be much more effort to get there. Though some seem to have it in their natures despite very hard knock lives.
That's a beautiful way to reframe this entirely. You're describing something much more nuanced than the either/or of fate versus destiny, you're talking about choices that run so deep they reshape who we are at a neurological level.

Your analogy of 'home' is perfect. We choose to invest in a place, build memories there, create our lives around it, but eventually that choice becomes so embedded it feels automatic, even when we've moved on. That 'home base' in our minds isn't rationally chosen anymore; it just is.

The neurological angle is fascinating too. There's real research showing that sustained choices and behaviors literally rewire our brains. So perhaps the most profound loves are those where our repeated decisions to love become so deeply embedded in our neural pathways that they feel inevitable, not because they bypassed choice, but because choice ran so deep it transformed our very wiring.

This suggests we might be looking at this backwards. Instead of asking whether love is fate or destiny, maybe we should ask: when does destiny become so complete it feels like fate?
Maybe the deepest loves aren't fate OR destiny, but destiny that has become so complete it feels like fate.
 
That all holds true except for place of origin, in terms of home and family. It’s not a choice for developing brains - it becomes subconsciously hardwired.

So parents may have a choice (and responsibility) to love their kids for better or worse, kids may not have a choice to love their parents for better or worse. Ditto for home. For adult relationships, familial or romantic or platonic - or establishing a home - that’s different.
 
Last edited:
Fate and destiny are part of the future ... some by our input and some by input from the other and the produce is somewhat quantum ...

Get over it folks it is like a ridge to be Rhode while observing both sides for a short piece of the ultimate perspective ... quite philosophical in the end ... that's another home that was where you started initially ... aboriginal or obtuse?

The obtuse is what folk will not relate to for para Noia ... the thing to get over about Mort the snerd ... Nard is the rub for the burn as you pass through ...

Everything passes and is recycled over in over in the greater ultimacy ... pragmatic? Just word for the greater spread ... as we put our feet up ... boots on or off ... that's the cat ... great unknown in the tree ... an icon of what issues from the deal ... a problem for those that go into it with potential of bankruptcy ... larger than they can stand against ... Pro-con? Remains enigma ... irresolvable from mortal Vu ... thus the de Jah ...

Things beyond ... some seen some abstract others virtue? Ismael ... whirl of fire as a vessel ... the flash is ... (I'll leave that for you). Developing fringe ... fuzzy light ... hint from the pits of Dante ... where roots of the vine are established ... branches? Well now ... spread ... mostly at night I am told by herbologists ...

They are part of the integral science ... study of the numb thing? What if they are in Ayre ... weavings?
 
Last edited:
That all holds true except for place of origin, in terms of home and family. It’s not a choice for developing brains - it becomes subconsciously hardwired.

So parents may have a choice (and responsibility) to love their kids for better or worse, kids may not have a choice to love their parents for better or worse. Ditto for home. For adult relationships, familial or romantic or platonic - or establishing a home - that’s different.
But if love were truly 'fated' between children and their biological parents, then adoption and foster care wouldn't work. A baby taken from their birth mother and given to adoptive parents will form just as deep and complete a loving bond with those adoptive parents.

This shows that even early childhood attachment isn't about fate, it's about proximity, care, and consistent interaction during critical developmental windows. What gets hardwired into developing brains is the capacity to form attachment bonds, not the specific target of those bonds.

So even childhood love isn't really 'fated' in the sense of being predetermined. It's responsive to circumstances and to the choices adults make about who will provide care. The child's brain will attach to whoever shows up consistently with love and safety.

This brings us back to the original point, across all stages of life, love seems to emerge from circumstances, choices, and human agency rather than from some predetermined fate.
 
But if love were truly 'fated' between children and their biological parents, then adoption and foster care wouldn't work.
And on the flip side, some of the horrific cases of child abuse we hear about would not happen. The late American thriller writer Andrew Vachss, who was also a lawyer representing children in abuse cases (to give you an idea, he once broke a bone in his hand demonstrating in court how hard a child had been hit), always held that the family we choose matters more than biological family, even if biology might be factor in the choice.
 
The factors are fey and flighty ... in the quantum state of psyche (unreal?) it is dicey, one way or the other it can backfire ... one should understand more ... not just know more because funny chemical agents interfere ... catalysts from past genes ...

The old adage: know thy self is critical before you blow the tete like the headless horseman of Godfather Fame!

You never wondered about that raw red neck? Hidden data ... that should have been more invested ...
 
Is the child abuser fated or destined to be a child abuser?
At times goes both ways as indicated by the empiric ↔ ... that sign is used in the case of demonstrating reversibility which in some reactions are impossible ... once done it is over. Now in thermodynamics some opening occurs for study of possibilities as in the comparison of enthalpy (energy) as compared to entropy which involves a heat sink (Black Hole or diabolical pit). Thus is an abstract function for calculation of things beyond comprehension ... like Chernigov Radiance? The rule is that nothing exceeds the speed of light but read the definition ... exceptions to rules are impossible ... explain such affections ...

People like to be conceived as perfect in what has been declared even if the declaration is someone not very philosophical ...

I have observed that about all fields there is a course on Philosophy of that expertise. Yet I have had it pounded into me that a sector of theologics are not very philosophical and call philosophy the worst evil!

Now in an elaboration of philo (love's descent) and Sophy (wisdom) what kind of fusion is required for that nihilism? The the symbol of the Ham (dark) Mere as the primal mother and blue skys, Stardust and all that? Imagine the sparks and fireworks required for initiation ... as old LGKing would say hypnotic pre science ... and then reality fell into place as 2nd person ... after that Cosmo and the wish that there had been some omniscient value ... then the paring might have been calm Ayre ...

Trouble who knows about Ayr ... too vaporous ... like the 4 winds ... finicky weather in the earthy vortex ... critical grinder ... for spooks and soul ... essence ... indeterminate stuffing's ... breathe in and out ... come off the contraction ... it is just a thought! Thin material ... poor cover for what's there fragile and flimsy ... matter to bare ... black and obtuse blossom? Sight unseen ... until relaxed about abuse ... David caught a glimpse of the unlikely MOG-wise ... from Judean Lands ...

A rare experience in modern terms of rush ... and changing spots without delay ... Calvin or Hobbs ... Ca+ being the obstacle ... inhibition? Iconic and gone in a flash ...

All saints Dais ... imagine the fright of black, white, red and yellow on a blue-green fringe ... orange clockwork marking out the purple? be the death of me ... if familiarized!
Mystery gone ... how to stimulate that? Group baptisms ... all in the water under the bridge ... somebody jumped off ... taleh assie?

Shimmer ... in the heat of the nigh abstractions ... spooks ... shades off a bit ... purple dells!
 
Last edited:
Is the child abuser fated or destined to be a child abuser?
Neither fated nor destined, they choose to abuse. But if you insist on the fate framework, then you're forced into the morally repugnant position that innocent children are 'fated' to suffer abuse and abusers are just fulfilling some predetermined role. The abuser chooses to harm a child when they could choose not to. We know this because plenty of people with similar backgrounds, trauma, or mental health issues don't become abusers. If it were fate, everyone with those risk factors would abuse. The question itself reveals why the fate framework fails completely, it either strips accountability from abusers or dignity from victims. Child abuse happens because people make evil choices, not because of cosmic predestination.
 
Is the child abuser fated or destined to be a child abuser?
That's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that if parents were "doomed" to love their children, they would not be abusing them.

But to answer your question, a high percentage of abusers were themselves victims of abuse. Which suggests that, absent some kind of intervention like good counselling and getting them out of the abusive environment as soon as possible, abuse victims could be "fated" to abuse. Except that not all do for other reasons. Some luck into another environment where they can recover without the formality. So it's not so much their fate as a risk of society not taking and dealing with abuse seriously. So if families, support groups, social welfare and legal authorities do their jobs in these cases, it is not "fated".

Is that changing? Hard to say. Keeping kids with their parents used to be a priority of social welfare authorities, arguing a parents' "love" matters. Now, I think that the dangers of keeping kids in an abusive environment are recognized so priorities have shifted. Not sure if they have shifted enough. Abusive parents still seem to get away with a lot, perhaps more in some places than others.
 
Back
Top