Argument Against Fate

Fate seems to be loosely defined as an inevitable progression of events in one’s life that cannot be changed or altered by any external causes. I am not challenging the idea of fate, nor discrediting it, but merely arguing that an external cause relating to fate is indeed our own perception and justification of it, in the form of hope. “An Occurrence at Own Creek Bridge” acts as a quintessential example to highlight the “inevitability” of fate. Unfortunately for Farquhar, there was no escaping his dangling death. Yet, we as readers are lead to believe first, that there is much hope he will escape the hanging, and second, that he does in fact live through the hanging after an incredibly detailed summary of his escape. Neither prove to be true, as the last sentence of the narrative confirms Farquhar “inevitable” fate. However, we would be left with absolutely no story if it weren’t for Farquhar’s hope in the form of hallucinations of his own escape. When considering this in a greater context, if we all have fates that are destined for us, why do we bother experimenting with new ideas, trying new things, or forming any types of aspirations? Aspiration, defined as “a hope or ambition of achieving something,” is the exact opposite of fate. If we are ultimately unable to achieve what we hope to, because of our fate, it seems pointless to even try. Despite this, we still try, day in and day out. We are always trying to be better, smarter, faster, and more equipped to handle whatever is thrown at us. We are never able give up hope, and Ambrose Bierce does a good job of capturing this.

Whether we are able to control our own fate or not is not something I am educated nor experienced enough to tackle. But, I am willing to argue, using Bierce’s work, that without the idea of hope and challenge to fate, there would be no longer be any fate, but instead a stagnant and sad reality awaiting us all.