People of our age are the victims of living without a purpose or ideal. With no aspiration to follow, they have at times allowed their willpower to decay; at other times, they have unleashed it, but only to cause destruction to the values they once held dear, like peace and human dignity. When they were in a state of lethargy this has led them to self-destruct from within, and when they sprang into action, it was to raze to the ground values such as faith, ethics, and justice. So, both their withdrawal and involvement have always caused trouble.

These carnal beings are guided by the whims of desire instead of the wisdom of conscience. They are constantly piqued emotionally, but their hearts prefer daily gossip and small talk. They have no perspective, no new ideas, no code of conduct, and no significant projects for the future. At their times of weakness, they remain silent regarding almost every subject. But when they attain power, they attempt to express themselves through various means of destruction; and just like leaves scattered around with the coming of autumn, they are continuously swept from one place to another according to the direction of the winds; and occasionally those who pass by tread on these piles of leaves.

For many years, this dark and gloomy atmosphere virtually became a part of the nature of today’s people. Indeed, ever since this society willingly restricted its emotions, thoughts, and objectives, it was either overcome by an inferiority complex, or it raved with delirium. In both cases, it was a war waged against its distinctive identity. Unfortunately, even today this battle continues at full speed, just in a different dimension. While one half of the world pursues new projects in contemplation of a new age, the other half is still suffering amidst the vicious circles of old crises. Our thoughts are confused, our emotions repressed, our behavior inconsistent, and our hearts uncompassionate. The masses are mere puppets in the traps of the meaningless tides; the society pursues a different path, changing direction every day, and the guides are reckless. Each and every institution we study corrodes from within, and this makes us shudder. Indeed, it is almost impossible to observe a life of thought—or its morals, culture, art, politics, or law—without feeling the pangs of sorrow.

There are many nations that have shared a similar fate of oppression and injustice. They persist in competing among each other in undesired behavior.  They secretly cause destruction amongst one another, and are constantly at war. The fate of this vast world might be a perpetual state where power dominates justice, and countries try to imitate one another in a race to the bottom. But in all honesty, it would be wrong to expect sparrows to win a victory lost by eagles…

This society is like a ship taking on water, and being damaged from within. To prepare this ship for the long journey ahead, we need courageous individuals who have been successful in protecting their faith, determination, and hope. They possess high ideals, their lives are devoted to permanent service, and they are prepared to make both material and spiritual sacrifices. They are determined individuals capable of eliminating oppression of the sorts suffocating society over the last few centuries. These brave souls bind their own salvation to being in the service of others, disregard their stability, and spread it like soil on the path of others’ happiness. They circulate in people’s veins as air and blood to give life to others. They overflow as waterfalls to subdue the scorching heat of those burning with longing. Their actions arise out of a sense of responsibility that lies as an aspiration deep in their soul. Their mercy goes far beyond the borders of personal accountability and their compassion is vast enough to embrace all of humanity.

With these qualities they will remind humanity of the spiritual essence it has lost. They will serve as an example to those idle souls who have whittled away the last few centuries bearing no ideals. The fate of humanity is unity, not division. Even if we close our eyes and ignore certain things, by embedding the common aspects between us into our minds, events attract us more towards the communal atmosphere of pleasure and sorrow rather than individual emotions. We are reminded in our consciences of our social collectiveness. Indeed, just as our every move involves everyone in one way or another, any incident occurring, even in the most remote corner of the earth, involves us, too. This solidarity is due to our universal humanity, our shared emotions and thoughts. We were destined to live together with others, and we were created to share and sympathize. Principally, if mankind could perceive that its nature has been programmed for this solidarity, then, by taking advantage of this fate, we can change the course of our world together.

Once synchronized with our intentions and willpower, this natural flow will be enriched with new dimensions of reason, common sense, and free will. This will reveal the uniqueness of being human and will reward us for our choice and good intentions. Our willpower will be key that unlocks the ideal of an everlasting life.

Therefore, those who seek an everlasting life must bear the ideal of embracing others, so that they in turn may be embraced on the path towards eternity. On the contrary, just as the selfish, overly ambitious, and uncompassionate souls whose salvation depends upon the destruction of others were never capable of loving these “others,” they were themselves never loved. In addition, the pain of the injured and the devastation of the aggrieved have a greater effect on those who actually suffer these afflictions. An individual who is privileged enough to sacrifice for others is respected by all, even those besieged by loss and sorrow.

Those who behave selfishly and without compassion are condemned to remain prisoners in their individual worlds; they will never experience the vastness of true collectivity. These selfish humans are little more than living corpses who suffer nothing but misery between the course of life and death. They are only deceiving their own souls and consciences by eliminating the true values of being human.

The true life is planned for the generations of today and the future; an ideal life lived for noble causes, a life lived for others. Every step of this life is suffused with this collective awareness. The reflection of this kind of life is a full-length mirror of the characteristics that define a real human; it is the peak of perfection. Those who can look with wisdom can easily see behind this reflection a profound and intimate connection with the whole of existence. In this reflection, one observes both himself and others with the eyes of the heart and perceives with the appreciativeness of the conscience. Therefore, just as individuals have a sounder connection with their own spiritual worlds, they also attain the ability to observe and grow familiar with their surrounding environments; they see that everything appears to be kinder and more reasonable.

However, it is impossible to achieve this transformation overnight. This is the manifest of compassion which emerges following a long fermentation process within the depths of our souls, and a call to humanism in the language of the heart. This call surges from spiritual souls, spreading its own colors into the environment; over a period of time, it begins to ensure that everything speaks in its own language. As this emotion ascends directly from the heart, it can never be affected by exterior influences and parasites which pollute the entire environment.

This call is most fitting to be welcomed in the heavens and the earth, for it is faith-inspired and grace-filled. One day, the residents of spiritual realms will honor this call and the gates to the heavens will be opened to usher it in with praise and courtesy. Then, all the hearts will beat with compassion, think with compassion, speak with compassion, act with compassion, and embrace the whole world with compassion… And I believe on that day, when the earth has become a radiant reflection of compassion, we will embrace life and encourage others to embrace life with more sincerity. By completely escaping miserliness in showing others the path to eternity, by observing the inner spirits of both ourselves and others, we will have reached the spiritual capability of perceiving from a much different angle. By not being satisfied solely with the good ideas we are capable of accomplishing, we will also strive to attain the goodness and kindness beyond our capability. And when the inaccessible becomes accessible, it will roar with the gratitude of benefaction; and those transcendent ideals will inspire us with hope and anticipation.

A spiritual level like this, which asserts an individual’s own limits through the devotion of kindness, must be the deepest, most remarkable aspect of a person. In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of other people, these individuals will reach an esteem of exceptional superiority, and will undoubtedly gain the favor of being the perfect creation due to this depth. Their affection felt towards everyone is a result of their sound relationship with God and it is an ideal at the personal level. It is a sublime ideal at the national level to pray for the nation’s glory even at the cost of one’s own life. And it is a transcendent ideal to utter the words, “I am ready to burn in the hellfire if only I could see the faith of my nation has been ensured.”[1] It is an ideal founded upon an all-encompassing sense of responsibility, mercy, and universal compassion to say, “My Lord, forgive my people, for they do not know,” to those who have even gone as far as to threaten to kill.[2]

Our present society needs courageous individuals of such noble ideals. It needs brave idealists capable of holding their hands out with a sense of compassion to their own nation, and then to the whole of mankind. We need these courageous idealists who pray for the good of others every time they hold their hands up in supplication. And as nobody else can, or will fulfill such a major demand, it is our duty to voice and enforce this amongst ourselves…

[1] A quote from Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (d. 1960).

[2] A prayer of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, after the pagans of Mecca wounded him during the Battle of Uhud.

The scene depicts an ordinary day in a metropolitan city. People are crossing the streets, perhaps going to work. There are traffic lights and so on. However, it is just a simulation program; all the actions of the people and all the events in the environment were predetermined. We can imagine questions popping into Neo’s mind: “Is the universe really a kind of simulation? Does God interfere with the universe or does it operate like a machine?” and followed by “Is it possible to compute someone’s fate? Does free will exist?”

Neo would neither be the first nor the last to ask similar questions. Until the 1930s, the answers to these questions were sometimes influenced by the idea of scientific determinism which considered the universe like the one in The Matrix. A paradigm shift took place in 1930s when two brilliant scientists proposed their ground breaking studies on non-determinism. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle considered the phenomenal aspects of non-determinism in the universe. First, we will have a short journey through the idea of scientific determinism. Then, we will investigate non-determinism and its consequences.

The idea of scientific determinism

The term ‘scientific determinism’ is defined to be the computability of future states, given the current state and a computer that has sufficiently large computation capacity. Suppose we take a snapshot of the universe at a particular time, or press the pause key and freeze the universe such as the example from The Matrix. What scientific determinism says briefly in simple terms is that by looking at that entire picture of the moment, the picture of the next second can be calculated using the laws and formulas of physics. On a large scale and in the long term, this idea leads to an exact computation of a moment of the universe given the initial conditions and its governing laws at the time of its creation. This is the key point for some scientific determinists who exclude the Divine work in the universe; if God exists, He only sets the initial conditions and the physical laws of the universe. Then the universe works on its own like a machine.

The first modern idea of scientific determinism was articulated by Newton in 18th century. Newton believed that all the laws governing the universe could be deduced from formulas, and these formulas could be derived by following the scientific method. First of all, science requires consistency among all known formulas and theories. This led the German mathematician David Hilbert to tackle the problem of proving the consistency of arithmetic in 1900s. One way of showing the consistency of arithmetic was to prove or disprove infinite number of statements in arithmetic, which was practically impossible! Instead, a clever idea was to develop a methodology that will generate the proof or disproof of a given arbitrary statement in arithmetic. If that methodology existed and was shown to be correct, that would be the happy ending of the story. Motivated by this problem in 1913, Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell wrote their work, Principia Mathematica, a three-volume work on the foundations of mathematics. It was an attempt to derive all mathematical truths without the requirement of human intuition. They utilized symbolic logic, since it has a profound methodology for proving statements.

Later, this work would have played a fundamental role for proving the correctness / incorrectness of any statement in the universe. As an ultimate goal, by deducing all the information that belongs to a certain time of the universe, it would have been possible to compute the exact situation of the universe at an arbitrary time, which we mentioned before.

The fall of scientific determinism

At that time, Principia Mathematica left two questions open:

• Could a contradiction be derived from the Principia’s axioms (the question of inconsistency)?

• Does a mathematical statement which could neither be proved nor disproved in the system (the question of completeness) exist?

These questions were the heart of the discussion, and they had to be both answered as ‘no’ by Principia Mathematica to be deterministic. We have already explained the necessity of consistency before. On the other hand, some states cannot be calculated in an incomplete system which violates the determinism.

In 1931, Gödel published his famous article “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems.” This work claims to refute the claims of scientific determinists about deriving all mathematical truths from logical systems. In his article, Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem showed that sufficiently complex systems (such as the ones described in Principia Mathematica and the physical laws of the universe) could not be complete and consistent at the same time. Gödel proved his theorem using a genius idea, which was by showing that a similar statement to “This statement cannot be proved” can be expressed in any sufficiently complex logical systems. Hence, one who proves it will create an inconsistency in the formal system, or it will be considered as improvable, violating the completeness rule of the formal system.

Another stroke to scientific determinism came from Heisenberg in 1927 with his famous Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg asserted that both the velocity and the position of a particle cannot be accurately measured at the same time. Measurement requires interfering with the particle in terms of position or velocity. Observation becomes a part of the outcome which is in fact not known to be the real outcome. In short, uncertainty principle implies that the particle positions can only be calculated as a probability distribution.

One can object that this effect may be a result of our lack of the knowledge needed to find out the facts about particle position and velocity. However, Copenhagen’s interpretation of Quantum mechanics is commonly accepted, and it states that the problem of uncertainty is not epistemological but ontological; i.e., the problem is not due to the limits of scientific knowledge but depends on the constitution of the universe . From a mathematical aspect, Gödel’s theorem strongly asserts the same fact.

Consequences of non-determinism

Non-determinism in the Universe brought back earlier concepts categorized as meta-physical, such as ‘fate’ and ‘free will,’ into the debate about scientific knowledge for further investigation, and made a phenomenal change in the perspectives on the existence of God.

In The Matrix, remember the scene wherein Neo says “Deja vu” after he sees the black cat for the second time at the stairs of the apartment. Then Trinity tells him that it happened due to a change in the Matrix. The free will of Neo and his friends causes the failure of the deterministic nature of the Matrix; the Matrix cannot make exact calculation of their actions and foresee the future. Instead, it alters the simulation program based on their actions. Now, the concept of fate is not a predetermined destiny in the Matrix; it involves the human free will, hence nobody knows what will happen in the future, including the Matrix itself.

Free will requires the ability to make choices independent from deterministic constraints. A friend of yours offers you to take one of two identical apples, and you take one of them. If it was possible to rewind time and get back to the moment of the offer, this time you might choose the other apple. Note that the states are precisely the same; the entire history of the events in the universe is exactly the same as the one in previous scenario. This is the key point: in two equivalent states of the universe; i.e., all conditions are exactly the same, free will allows you to choose different options in these two states. This situation contrasts with a deterministic universe however well suits to a non-deterministic one.

Another major consequence is about the Creator’s role in the universe. As mentioned before, scientific determinism can reduce the concept of ‘God’ into the following statement [4, 6]:

• If there is a God, He created the universe, set the initial conditions and the laws, and left it the way it works. He doesn’t interfere with its execution.

By non-determinism, this statement can no longer be regarded as the absolute truth. Instead of clearly determined outcomes in the future time frames, Quantum mechanics introduced the notion of probabilities. In each decision point (i.e., quantum time frames or every single moment), there are many possible outcomes. That means either there is an entire ‘randomness’ or there is a Decision Maker that decides at these decision points and controls the flow of all actions in the universe. In case of randomness, it is always possible to reach a ‘failure state’. However, the universe has never failed for billions of years. Here, the failure state is not the ending of the universe or Armageddon, because these states are internally consistent. Failure state means to get the ‘blue screen’ as in Windows; suddenly everything stops or perishes. ‘Failure’ can be described as an unexpected error that leads unrecoverable / unhandled error which crushes the operating system. At this point, the universe needs to restart in order to start everything from the beginning. The idea of randomness in the course of actions is strongly opposed by Einstein as stated in his famous saying “God doesn’t play dice.”

So the question is “how can the concepts ‘God’, ‘fate’ and ‘free will’ be related to each other?” Now, we may say the following statements about fate: it is not computable, it is not random (due to the definition of fate), and free will is possible. In this case, we have two options:

• there is no free will – God controls all the events and free will is not involved in it,

• there is free will – God incorporates free will in his creation of the upcoming states

According to the second idea, we have been given the right to choose among limited amount of options and then God creates the chosen option. For instance, I would like to move my arm and show the tendency to move it. So, God creates necessary conditions such as the pulse from the brain that orders the arm to move, and the arm moves. Of course, He always preserves the right not to create the things according to my will. In that case, the arm doesn’t move – I might have a stroke or might not have sufficient strength or something else might happen.

Consequently, in case of free will, fate becomes all the outcomes of God’s will by including free will in the universe. But “God knows everything, everything that will be in the future. Then, doesn’t that mean the universe is deterministic?” As we mentioned above, determinism requires the computation of future states. However the Creator knows the fate with His infinite knowledge by overseeing the entire system but not computing. Here, computation and knowledge are two different concepts; knowledge may not be acquired by computation. If somebody shows us the result of a multiplication of two numbers, we learn the result by seeing it but not computing it.

Non-determinism in the universe might be considered as the beginning of a re-marriage between science and meta-physics. Non-determinism implies that it is not reasonable to absolutely reject Divine work in the operation of the universe and the idea of free will. The concepts that are considered to be currently meta-physical such as fate and free will need further investigation in the physical sciences.

Fatih Gelgi has a PhD in computer science. He is currently the computer coordinator of Accord AMSP team in Los Angeles.

References

[1] K. Devlin. “Kurt Gödel – Separating Truth from Proof in Mathematics,” Science, 298: 1899-2000, 2002.

[2] F. Gelgi. “Implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Artificial Intelligence vs. Mind,” The Fountain Magazine, 46, 2004.

[3] K. Gödel. “Uber formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I,” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38: 173-98, 1931.

[4] S. Hawking. Brief History of Time, Bantam Dell Publishing, Ed. 10, 1988.

[5] E. Nagel, J. R. Newman. Gödel’s Proof, New York University Press, 2001.

[6] C. Taslaman. Kuantum Teorisi Felsefe ve Tanri, Istanbul Yayinevi, 2008.

[7] Wikipedia, “Principia Mathematica,” retrieved on Feb 27, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica.

Notes

1. Interested reader may refer to [5] for the detailed and understandable explanation of Gödel’s proof.
2. For details see “Chapter 4: Uncertainty Principle” in [4].
3. Different interpretations of Quantum physics can be found in [6] or at: http://kuantum.gen.tr.

“In heaven all is gladness. In hell all is sorrow. Upon this earth, since it lies between, sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. We have our being between the two extremes, and so it partakes of both.” -Baltasar Gracian

I.

At some time in our lives, if we are mildly introspective and equally as observant, the incessant obviousness of life’s modus operandi is unmasked: That life, in essence, operates not as a utopia would, but as a dystopia, wherein woe is inextricably conjoined to its antithesis-felicity. Following this observation, many of us may find ourselves pondering over that timeless question which feigns simplicity: Why do bad things happen to good people? A vast myriad of philosophers have attempted-with little more than modest triumph at best-to make sense of this seemingly cruel paradox. Whether you are one of those who contemplate the visitation of woe upon yourself, or upon the good people you know, is only half of the task; at some point, woe shall manifest itself in our lives and in those of our loved ones. The other half of the task, then, involves acceptance and coping with it.

People of faith and without faith alike find themselves habitually treading on common ground, and they wonder: Is nature inherently our own worst enemy? Is God deliberately targeting us with misfortune for having transgressed? In a word, no; but eminent men and women have speculated. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that “Nature is no sentimentalist,-does not cosset or pamper us. We must see that the world is rough and surly, and will not mind drowning a man or a woman; but swallows your ship like a grain of dust.” Natural laws operate indiscriminately; history has provided endless examples of this, where both the bad and the good perish from disease, natural disasters, or by fang and claw. Not even the intensely pious and god-fearing are exempt from suffering; one only need consult the story of Job in the Bible-and other holy scriptures-to see this. The Prophet Job, a man who was “blameless and upright, who feared God, and turned away from evil,” suffered legendary misfortune, yet did not curse God, nor did he give in to his plight, but accepted it, saying: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” To say that God and/or Nature contrive, through duplicity, for the good people of this world to taste the suffering which should, as some perceive it, be reserved for the wicked, is positively absurd. What must be kept in mind is the fact that this is not Heaven, and that laws of nature do not discriminate-they simply act.

Menander, an ancient Grecian dramatist, gave prima facie advice on how to avoid woe: “If you want to live your whole life free from pain you must either become a god or else a corpse. Consider other men’s troubles and that will comfort you.” Also, consider the words of stoic philosopher and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “Nature gives and nature takes away. Anyone with sense and humility will tell her, ‘Give and take as you please,’ not out of defiance, but out of obedience and goodwill.” The sooner we accept our humble stations in life, and the sooner we realize that neither nature nor God owes us a life of pleasantries and unending bliss, we can conclude that it is not an applicable question of “why bad things happen to good people”, but a question of “what can I do to live the best amidst misfortune, and how can I assuage my fellows in times of their misfortune?” Misfortune, as the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote, is not “….exceptional; but misfortune, in general, is the rule.” By helping our fellow man, and by not giving in to woe, we can try breaking that rule.

II.

In this dystopia, there is no possible way to traverse along without encountering an unpleasant incident; ironically, however, it is often those very incidences that shape us into exceptional human beings. Nietzsche’s perspicacious adage of “what does not kill us makes us stronger,” should be the byword of humanity and our heroic equanimity when it comes to enduring misfortune. Reflect on how many myriads of good people have suffered and have turned that suffering in on itself, only to rise above, changing themselves-or the societies they live in-into more benevolent mechanisms. Reflect on how many good people have perished in wars, subsequently gaining liberty, or bettering their fellows’ lives by extirpating oppression; reflect on the good people who have endured sickness; and though possibly succumbing, lent us their strength, their hope; and reflect on the good people in your life today, on their misfortunes, and how you, as a good person, may become a better one by assuaging their suffering. Remember that both good and bad people are equal prey, and woe does not differentiate.

My own personal experience with misfortune will hopefully illustrate the point I mentioned above, about how unfortunate incidences can shape us into better people; therefore misfortune, at times, will not always deserve the appellation “bad” but can merit that of “good.”

Close to a decade ago I suffered an injury that forever deprived me of the use of about eighty percent of my body; as a result, I am confined to a wheelchair. The caustic arrow of misfortune that struck me seemed like an exceedingly pitiless one-especially considering the fact that I was only twenty years old, strong, and capable of almost anything. Abruptly I became paralyzed from the middle of my chest down, the arrow of misfortune leaving me with the scar of incomplete quadriplegia. Questions to ask: Was I a good person before woe’s arrow struck me? Good enough. Am I a better person now? Absolutely. Whether it was divine intervention, or the desultory act of nature instigated by my actions, rapidly began to matter little. And as I lay in the hospital, the words of Harriet Beecher Stowe echoed within my mind: “Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.” The tide did turn, and my dreadful situation turned into an auspicious new beginning.

Within most of us, there is a better person imprisoned behind the guise of a bad or indifferent one; moreover, for myself, “why a bad thing happened to a good person” was and is not applicable, because I’ve chosen it not to be applicable, simply by the recognition that what could be interpreted as bad was really a good thing disguised as a bad thing, and it changed my life for the better. By believing a misfortunate event in one’s life to be bad, and by agonizing over it unremittingly, we exacerbate the “badness” of it; we unwittingly inundate ourselves with negativity, thereby breeding fresh misfortune; we lament on how much of a good person we were, forgetting that we still can be; and finally, we wrongfully cast maledictions upon God, the world, or the people closest to us. If we accept the misfortune, if we accept the injury, and if we accept the pain-knowing that it will soon regress and dissipate-the quicker we can begin to heal and return to our life’s path.

Thoughts to keep in mind: The misfortune and woe that manifests within our lives will certainly vary in degree; not all of us who are brought low will ever rise up again. Undoubtedly some will perish, and fate-that unstable force impervious to all attempts to be controlled-will operate according to her own dictates, even as the tears of humankind wash over her like waves on a lonely sea…

III.

Long ago, Sophocles said of fate: “Dreadful is the mysterious power of fate-there is no deliverance from it by wealth or by war, by towered city, or dark, sea-beaten ships.” Indeed, fate can be as odious as it can be charitable, analogous to time. The domineering trait ascribed to fate is its immutability. Should fate meddle in an adverse fashion against a magnanimous person (why bad things happen to good people), it may be denounced as a person’s bad luck-or as something opprobrious and unfair. But is it that simplistic? Human beings have a domineering trait of their own-imprudence. A hypothesis not heretofore mentioned is one in which good people are responsible for succumbing to adverse turns of fate based on their own imprudent actions and inactions. The vicissitudes of fortune, then, should not always come as a surprise-nor as something inexorable.

For a moment, let us suppose a person leads his or her life as the absolute paragon of goodness. He/she is charitable, pleasant, humble, and ethical when meeting out all endeavors; in a word, they are like a saint. Now presume they have an unhealthy diet, smoke profusely, and never exercise-all imprudent choices which carry foreseeable fates. Suddenly they find out at a young age that they are diagnosed with lung cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease; suppose that they soon die. Do we attribute these “bad” things (i.e., sickness and eventual death) as bad things happening to a good person? Should we not, instead, label it as mere folly? Their own choices led to them being struck by the arrow of misfortune, and in this example, fate could possibly have unfolded differently had their life choices been more innocuous. This is not to say we should castigate a person for their life choices. Instead, we should offer advice and encouragement which would lead them to obviate an adverse fate.

Indifference, or inaction, can be just as fatal. Charities, for instance, rely on the actions of empathetic people. Thus, if those people were to become wholly indifferent, and were to stop donating their money or time (inaction), how many more good-yet poor-people would suffer misfortune? By being proactive, as a whole, we can ameliorate the suffering of those whose circumstances are less fortunate, and even if it is a one percent reduction in the sum misery of the human race, it shall have been worth it. By contributions of food, medicine, or funds we can alter a worse fate into a better one: we can prevent the arrows of misfortune from striking, and in so doing, give others opportunity to a life in the midst of less woe. In doing nothing, we allow suffering to breed. Therefore, seemingly bad things will happen to good people-all the more so if we remain in moral stasis. A poem by Emily Dickinson inspires us to act:

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

IV.

As avowed earlier in this essay, I attempted to convey why bad things happen to good people, not as a matter of choice by God, who is loving and merciful than any other attribute; nor by nature-in the guise of a nefarious collaborator specifically targeting us-but rather as a consequence of our own choices and the nature of the dystopian structure in which all life, past and present, exists. Misfortune can be overcome by the acceptance of it; thereafter, one can move on without losing stride. Furthermore, as a result of an episode of suffering, we may become better people, and perhaps after we overcome our suffering we can help others through their times of crisis-thereby lessening an adverse turn of fate.

Fate, then, is immutable only to the degree that we allow. By our actions, inactions, and life choices, we contribute to either the sum of misfortune, or to the subtraction of misfortune.

Nothing happens without a purpose, including woe. Yet woe seems to be a sightless archer. Still, if we keep our faith in God, and if we recognize that all anguish and suffering must-and will-come to an end, the arrows of misfortune can do us no harm.

Harold R. Olcese is a history major at Western Connecticut University and will be receiving his B.A. this Fall. He is an accomplished landscape artist and lives in CT. Contact him via email at: harold.r.olcese@hotmail.com.

Where oaks once grew.

Power plants displace our cornfields

On that lovely land.

The breeze roughly sidles and bends

Over the purling brooks,

And all the mockingbirds hush

As the day droops.

Wailing moans heard everywhere

By countless orphans of the east,

Longing for a lofty peace,

Never knowing what fate conceives.

Neither chilly blizzards

Nor scorching sun,

Can lay a trap under its debris.

For those who learned too late, perhaps,

How to defy the pull of the sand.