It is funny enough how we attribute the idea of destiny to human beings but not to

animals or objects even. If we apply the concept of a deity writing our destiny, pre-
establishing our results in life no matter what path we choose, then we should consider that it
is applicable for every thing and every being. However, our view of ourselves as superior
beings has enabled us to consider that only humans are worthy of destiny. Kenan Malik, for
example, considers that “animals are objects of natural forces”
(https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/466/materialism-mechanism-and-the-human-mind), who
do not possess their own destiny. In his point of view, animals do not have the necessary
mental qualities to create their own path but act as mere objects in ours.

We would like, however, to leave this subject open for the reader to debate. The
purpose of the paper is not a religious one, it does not to alter religious beliefs or perceptions.
As David Hume stated, to try to argue with someone over religious beliefs is both daft and
disrespectful.

The goal of the paper is, however, to present the reader the idea that we are masters of
our lives, we are in possession of the wheal to stir the boat wherever we want, as well as the
idea that even when we consider that there is no chance, there is always one, it is only a
matter of starting to take action and awakening.

Before embarking on this journey, we would like to access and present the concept of
existentialism.

Although the concept can be traced as back as the Socratic period, as people were
concerned with the idea of knowing themselves and what lies beneath the surface of humans,
the philosophical idea of existentialism took form in the 19th and 20th century.

The 17th century witnessed Blaise Pascal, who, as opposed to existentialists, believed
that without a God, life would be confronted with meaningless and misery. Chronologically
attributed to Soren Kierkegaard, existentialism grew in popularity in the years following
WWII due to the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who acted as a milestone for
intellectual life. It may be that the trend found purpose during WWII due to people finding
themselves threatened, at a global level, by material and spiritual destruction. When people
find themselves in great distress, in extinguishing situations of utter carnage and annihilation,
they tend to seek comfort in mainly two things: hope in God or trust in their own power of
changing their destiny, of taking charge. As many had lost faith of being saved by a supreme
God, who had given them war and atrocities in the first place, existentialism came as a cure
to their suffering, a hope in a different faith, a faith that would enable them to act as builders
of their own path and destination. Thus, existentialism evoked the idea that the individual is
thrown “naked” and free into an instable world.

Among the philosophers who admitted their belonging to the movement, such as Karl
Jaspers, Kean Whal, Gabriel Marcel, Jose Ortega, Nikolai Berdyaev, Jean-Paul Sartre and his
lover Simone de Beauvoir, there were also others, such as Albert Camus, who firmly reputed
the label. Moreover, 19th century philosophers Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche
gained the title of precursors of the movement. Some also consider G. W. Friedrich Hegel
and Arthur Schopenhauer as having a meaningful part to play in influencing the evolution of
existentialism, since Kierkegaard and Nietzsche wrote their philosophies in opposition to
theirs.

Like B. Pascal, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche attributed attention to the way in which
people disguised and escaped the meaninglessness of life, but, as opposed him, they believed
that the role of free choice was quintessential in changing the nature and identity of the
individual.

The core idea of the philosophy was that human existence has no purpose and, thus, it
is meaningless. However, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, one of the most
notorious modern intellectual couples, brought a different note to the concept by believing
that exactly this meaningless is what gives complete freedom to a being by enabling them to
be the owner, the manufacturer of their own destiny, where nothing is impossible as long as
they are willing to try it. However, when the idea of suicide arose, Camus and Sartre had
different opinions. While Camus interpreted suicide as a cheap escape and believed that to
understand the meaningless of both life and death, represents a first step in being live, Sartre
viewed suicide as another matter of choice. If the individual is truly in complete control of his
freedom and choices, suicide is just another choice that is in one’s power to make. While
Sartre does not discard or outcast suicide, believing that, if done, it actually represents a way
of self-determining power (by actually doing it) and a way of giving meaning to the future,
Camus militates towards embracing the meaningless of life and creating meaning for
ourselves by developing and exploring. “The Myth of Sisyphus” and the fact that the reader is
asked to imagine Sisyphus happy, are but a perfect example of the way Camus interpreted
suicide – we should grasp the meaningless that exist in life and find happiness in it, because
ending life is an example of being too weak to enter a battle.

A profound rejection of determinism, existentialism believes that freedom and choice