everything in moderation

Fate is a concept only applicable when you think your future has a purpose, and controlling your destiny is just a way for one to ensure their future has the right purpose. The main character, Meursault, in the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus challenges much more than the concept of fate. It delves deeper, into the very concept of the purpose of our being.

Our culture breeds for us to have aspirations, dreams, and ambitions  Its natural logic for we all want to "achieve." However Meursault denies this by his every action in the book or better yet every inaction. This inaction is easily spied throughout the novel. This is once displayed by Meursault twice within a matter of hours. His boss asked if he would like to move to Paris to work at another office. Meursault simply states his indifference because "lives never really change" which causes irritation for his boss. The boss proceeds to state that Meursault has no ambition. Another Instance is when Marie, a love interest, asks him to marry her and he simply states he does not see why not, it really wouldn't make a difference. This lack of ambition and overall indifference is an outlet for Camus to illustrate an unusual attitude of life. One that is simply not caring, completely oblivious to the concept that life has no purpose and therefore ignoring the concepts of fate or future. This is further supported when Mursault is preparing oto be executed and concludes it does not matter if he dies tomorrow or in twenty years thus insinuating those twenty years would have no purpose and life would be meaningless.

 This is a stark contrast to the society I ahve grow up in where it has been bred to seek social approval. I mean we all want to be liked don't we? However it does not bother Meursault even after killing a man he shows no remorse, at his trial He cares not what the jury thinks of him, because of this he is free of the burdens society bears on so many of us. Now this is an extreme but I think we could all use a little more Meursault.

There is an entirely new aspect of my question explored in Ellison's the Invisible Man. That is the control of other people and society over one's future. In the novel our unnamed protagonist journeys through life as he attempts to find a path and identity.Therefor battling with the concept of self-identification.  Throughout the novel his identity is usually formed by those around him, an example of this is demonstrated early in the book as he is obsessed with attempting to fill the role of a Whit man also this is displayed at his initiation into the Brotherhood as they literally create his identity giving him a new name. However by the end of the novel our character releases himself of these alien identities he does this by an internal monologue with several notable characters that had been controlling him in which he states "I am through running... 'I'll free myself I said'" (pg 569)

This is an interesting twist on the question I posed because without identifying an Identity is hard to foresee ones future. For me what I perceive is that to be "successful" one has to confirm in the ranks of society but if one ever want to find oneself you have to step out of those ranks. I think the character finds himself when he does that. By a simple notion of eating Yams on the street in an impolite fashion he steps out of the conformity of society and begins to identify himself as he says "I yam what I am." (pg 266)

By the identifying of the protagonist in the novel Invisible Man it is illustrated that one can create their own identity and thus their own future. In this action defying the societal norms by dropping off and becoming "invisible" our protagonist puts his future in his own hands snatching his own future from the grips of fate and society pressures such as major characters Brother Jack an Bledsoe.

I believe my question relates especially well to Henry IV. This is because it is central to what the main character Hal is trying to accomplish, with changing his identity to the people of England making it possible to step into the role of prince his birthright. Hal in the beginning of the play runs around among common thugs robbing his own kingdom  as well as enjoying a fair portion of "sack" ultimately acting as a hooligan, which is no secret to the English people or court however by the end of the play he has turned that around by accomplishing deeds on the battlefield as well as disassociation of his previous groupies. Initially one almost instantaneously comes to the conclusion that Shakespeare illustrated that one does have control of their future he does this with the diction surrounding Hal which he is constantly stating things he will accomplish and in turn completes. An instance of this is him saying he will slay Hotspur, by the end of the play Hotspur is in fact lifeless due to Hal. Personally I think this is a perfect example of ones life. However it is almost a paradox. Because Hal stepping up and finally becoming a prince well isn't that his fate, his birthright, something he was born into from the beginning?

Mr. Kleeman I originally posted this as a comment on my previous blog not as an actual new blog which is probably why you couldn't find it but here it is

The argument for fate is easy to make in the story of Oedipus Rex. This is because their is a prophecy told which states Oedipus, he will kill his father and marry his mother. As the gods foretold this ended up happening, although the characters tried to avoid this. By Oedipus's parents sending him to die on Mt. Citharon however Oedipus was saved and sent to another city, in which he grew up. However Oedipus discovered this prophecy and left the city he grew up in, in an attempt to avoid the prophecy. He thought his adopted parents were his real parents. When he leaves the city he fulfills the prophecy. Displaying the concept of fate. However Sophocles' in my opinion has a strong belief in free will. This is illustrated in the story of Oedipus due to his decision to find out the truth. In which Oedipus expresses his free will by finding the truth of his history. This is a demonstration of Oedipus's free will through his determination to find the truth.

I think that this question reflects an inner conflict that is ongoing within our minds. This is a conflict because two ideas our bred into us from the American society those ideals is that of destiny or fate and  choice, Carpe Diem-esque concept.
The concept of destiny and fate has been a piece of culture and literature for generations. Examples can be drawn from the Tragedy Oedipus Rex to Star Wars. In both a prophecy was told, Expelling one's fate from the shadows. However in both of these stories an attempt was made to deny their fate or destiny. It was useless. This is because the end result was as foretold and unavoidable. reoccurring themes integrate themselves into the human thought process, well at least for me. Another example is religion. I would be lying if I said that I have never heard a Christian say "God has a plan" when something gone awry, another example the concept of fate. In this situation just used as a mechanism of survival to get through a tragedy or even just a bad day.
Carpe Diem, seize the day, an idea in essence of taking control of your own destiny, Making choices. For an example one just has to draw on the economic system in which we are immersed in. Capitalism which your worth is determined by what you make of yourself. Survival of the fittest a complete simplification, but one that will work to get the point across, if somebody just believes they will naturally surface to the top of our world they will probably not; where as somebody who works hard and makes the right choices will achieve great things. Allowing for those who work hard to become the fittest and the most successful.

This is how this question arrived to my mind however I don't see a solution in sight.