
And then what? Asking a philosopher for advice - hoffmannesque
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/and-then-what-midlife/
======
pbhjpbhj
Are there any atelic activities (for humans!), taking a walk with someone
doesn't have a destination but it does (always?) have a goal. If you set off
for a wander with someone, not having a walking goal, but that person is
called away then you fail; if you finish the walk together then you succeed.

In fact people will often have more solid goals to "a walk together" seemingly
goalless activities.

Chilling out, is spending time, is cementing a relationship through
familiarity -- you can fail to chill out together, so I consider you can also
achieve "chilling out" despite it being a relatively vacuous term.

Perhaps the analogy is just flawed and he means things like "love someone" or
"get exercise". But then I think they're just abstractions for categories of
activity that are completable.

It probably doesn't matter, as the important point is whether we generally
perceive the activities differently; psychology trumps reality here. It's a
compelling analysis.

------
Xophmeister
As one who will turn 37 in less than a fortnight, reading this felt sometimes
quite depressing. I have always subscribed to the adage that one is as old as
they feel; and I don’t feel old. However, increasingly, I see I’m not as fit
as I once was. This is the inevitable process of ageing, which comes as no
surprise, but what bugs me is how I see myself in terms of where I want to be.
Again, I feel young, in the sense that I’m still impetuous about my career and
still have aspirations of doing something I enjoy, rather than something that
pays the bills. My peers are physically the same age I feel — in their mid-20s
— slightly sharper with youth, while those of my generation seem to have
achieved at least one higher level in terms of development and respect. Has
that ship sailed for me? I originally felt I was just stuck in a rut of my own
making, but reading this passage on midlife crises gives me pause.

~~~
qubax
> I have always subscribed to the adage that one is as old as they feel; and I
> don’t feel old.

You don't feel old? How about if I told you that a child born when you turned
18 is now a sophomore in college. If you had a kid when you were 18, he'd be
19 now. Or if you knew any girl in high school who had a kid, that kid would
be in his 20s right now. Feel old yet?

> However, increasingly, I see I’m not as fit as I once was. This is the
> inevitable process of ageing,

As my grandpa said, aging is a slow decay. You are slowly rotting and you and
your clothes will get that unmistakable old people smell.

> Again, I feel young, in the sense that I’m still impetuous about my career
> and still have aspirations of doing something I enjoy, rather than something
> that pays the bills.

It's like that cat stevens song says "For you will still be here tomorrow, but
your dreams may not".

That is getting old.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
I take it that you use the age to dedcribe how old someone is.

I don't.

I am 48, feel like if I was 30 and plan and play as if I was 30 as well.

I have a job I like, two teenage boys with whom I will go biking in a moment.
And beat them in ping pong afterwards.

I know I am 48, but I tym fat from your depressing "old"

------
danielam
The article doesn't really go anywhere. The author dances with some
problematic notions, beats around the bush and leaves the reader with a piece
of unconvincing, milquetoast advice.

Ultimately, it cannot be emphasized enough how great an error modern
philosophy's unjustified rejection of telos is. At the very least, it is
problematic because it is incoherent and nihilistic. It is incoherent because
we deny its reality, but grant it to the mind which is itself no less real.
Worse still, efficient causality itself becomes incomprehensible in the
absence of telos. (For Aristotle, telos, or finality, is not merely something
that concerns conscious, intentional and willed acts -- that is but one kind
-- but what end(s) something is ordered toward, hence the inexplicability of
the regularity of the effects of efficient causes in its absence.) It is
nihilistic because by denying telos at the metaphysical level, we deny in the
deepest sense the very possibility of ends in any sense. From that follows the
impossibility of a true morality because telos is the ground for any moral
judgement. Reality, of course, supplies us with numerous counterexamples. In
my experience, the stubborn denial of telos is rooted in misunderstanding or a
learned prejudice bequeathed to us by the modernist tradition. (Curiously,
this denial ultimately lies at the heart of various fundamentalisms. Without
telos, you must appeal to something like divine commands or the caprice of a
dictator or whatever because there simply is never a fact of the matter where
ends are concerned.)

So, sure, it's possible you've been chasing things for the wrong reasons, or
chasing the wrong things, blindly, etc. Perhaps many people only begin to
reflect a little on their lives, however imperfectly, during middle age.
Ultimately, purpose and fulfillment only make sense in light of human nature,
which is also to say its inherent end or ends. If we ignore human nature,
dismiss it, perhaps as an infinitely malleable cultural fiction, then we
should not be surprised at the results.

------
mcguire
This is, I think, the essence of Epicurean philosophy: the purpose of life is
to enjoy what is enjoyable and to not worry about what is unpleasant. To
attempt any greater goal is to seek dissatisfaction.

------
pdfernhout
It took me a long time to realize what has been called "Descartes' Error":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Descartes%27_Erro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Descartes%27_Error&oldid=768456019)
"'Damasio argues in his well-known book that it is wrong to think that only
minds think. The body and our emotions have a key role in the way we think and
in rational decision-making'. Since, in his words, 'the body...contributes a
content that is part and parcel of the workings of the normal mind', it
follows that 'the mind is embodied, in the full sense of the term, not just
embrained'. Damasio's theory stresses 'the crucial role of feeling in
navigating the endless stream of life's personal decisions....The intuitive
signals that guide us in these moments come in the form of limbic-driven
surges from the viscera that Damasio calls "somatic markers" \- literally, gut
feelings'. Listening to your gut reactions, 'the somatic marker...may lead you
to reject, immediately, the negative course of action and thus...allows you to
choose from among fewer alternatives '."

Essentially, emotion underlies reason. Or, more generally, our choice of
goals, reasoning tools, and assumptions can't be chosen purely "logically" \--
even as once we have adopted some goal (like logical consistency) logic can
help move forward from that. So, rather than "I think therefore I am", it is
more "I feel therefore I am".

Or as Einstein put it: [http://www.sacred-
texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm](http://www.sacred-
texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm) "One can have the clearest and most
complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what
should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us
with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the
ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another
source."

As an example, this issue is a problematical aspect of Star Trek's Vulcans. A
life can't be lived purely "logically". So, Vulcans would still have to make
assumptions and set goals and choose tools of reason emerging out of their
current cultural context and upbringing. And those assumptions, goals, tools
and culture are to some extent arbitrary in each instance of choice -- even as
those choices generation after generation may be subject to evolutionary
selection and so are not arbitrary long-term in that sense. But even saying
"we do X because it helps us survive" is itself a choice based on a non-
logical (yet generally selected-for) gut-level goal of survival. So, Vulcans
are misleading themselves and others if they claim their decisions are purely
"logical". They may be logical decisions -- but they remain decisions based on
the logically-impure values and assumptions which underlie the logical edifice
built on top of all that.

Or, as Bertrand Russel says in one of his books (paraphrasing greatly), all
philosophers make at least one usually-unacknowledged assumption somewhere,
and then they go off building a castle of logic on top of that foundational
assumption.

Ultimately, humans are adapted mainly to find happiness in a certain context
reflecting our evolutionary heritage.

A rough sketch of that healthy context is mentioned by me here, citing an
essay by Philip Hickey, Ph.D called: "Depression Is Not An Illness: It is an
Adaptive Mechanism":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15455259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15455259)

    
    
       "In order to feel good, the following eight factors must be present in our lives.
       * good nutrition
       * fresh air
       * sunshine (in moderation)
       * physical activity
       * purposeful activity with regular experiences of success
       * good relationships
       * adequate and regular sleep
       * ability to avoid destructive social entanglements, while remaining receptive to positive encounters"
    

In general, the further we get away from those basics (and similar) the more
likely we are to be unhappy. No amount of philosophical cogitation is going to
cover up that unhappiness long-term for most people. Viktor Frankl survived a
concentration camp and then created "Logotherapy", suggesting having a meaning
in life can help us endure hardships and even find some happiness in pursuing
that meaning. So, there is truth in what Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: "He who
has a why to live for can bear almost any how." But long-term, a problematical
how takes its toll on our health despite the why (including often times
leading to depression).

Some people may be more susceptible to their environment than others (as both
a pro and a con): [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/on-the-trail-
of-t...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/on-the-trail-of-the-
orchid-child/) "As Ellis and Boyce explained in their paper, dandelion
children seem to have the capacity to survive — even thrive — in whatever
circumstances they encounter. They are psychologically resilient. Orchid
children, in contrast, are highly sensitive to their environment, especially
to the quality of parenting they receive. If neglected, orchid children
promptly wither — but if they are nurtured, they not only survive but
flourish. In the authors’ poetic language, an orchid child becomes “a flower
of unusual delicacy and beauty.”"

And, beyond that, even when you have all those basics, there is the risk of
falling into a "pleasure trap", seduced and addicted by "supernormal stimuli"
made possible by modern technology:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_Stimuli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_Stimuli)
"The book argues that human instincts for food, sex, and territorial
protection evolved for life on the savannah 10,000 years ago, not for today's
densely populated technological world. Our instincts have not had time to
adapt to the rapid changes of modern life. The book takes its title from
Nikolaas Tinbergen's concept in animal ethology of the supernormal stimulus,
the phenomena by which insects, birds, and fish in his experiments could be
lured by a dummy object which exaggerated one or more characteristic of the
natural stimulus object such as giant brilliant blue plaster eggs which birds
preferred to sit on in preference to their own. Barrett extends the concept to
humans and outlines how supernormal stimuli are a driving force behind today’s
most pressing problems, including modern warfare, obesity and other fitness
problems, while also explaining the appeal of television, video games, and
pornography as social outlets."

[http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html)
"What hard liquor, cigarettes, heroin, and crack have in common is that
they're all more concentrated forms of less addictive predecessors. Most if
not all the things we describe as addictive are. And the scary thing is, the
process that created them is accelerating."

[http://web.archive.org/web/20160418155513/http://www.drfuhrm...](http://web.archive.org/web/20160418155513/http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx)
"Once in awhile, a person may actually become aware of important dietary
knowledge. Despite the ingenious misinformation campaigns waged by the dairy,
cattle, and processed food industries, sometimes a person actually comes to
understand the truth about diet. At such times, determined individuals might
attempt to change their diet toward whole natural foods—in spite of dire and
unfounded warnings from their families, friends, and doctors. But along the
way, they are likely to be met with a formidable obstacle — their own taste
neuroadaptation to artificially-intense foods. This challenge is depicted as
Phases IV and V, wherein a change to less stimulating foods typically will
result in a reduced pleasure experience. In the early stages, this process is
dramatic because natural foods often are not nearly as stimulating. Scientific
evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30
and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that
for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a
reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a
devastating trap — as most of our citizens are, in effect, “addicted” to
artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of
taste re-calibration requires more motivation—and more self-discipline—than
most people are ever willing to muster. Tragically, most people are totally
unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to
comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits — and to keep away from the
products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most
people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be
condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure — thinking that the
process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we
explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation – and how to
master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness."

Now, could humans become adapted in different ways and remain healthy (by some
definition of health that supports survival and flourishing as individuals and
as one or more species)? Perhaps. But that remains speculation.

All that said, when people are in healthier unstressed situations, most are
less likely to end up addicted: [http://brucekalexander.com/articles-
speeches/rat-park/148-ad...](http://brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-
park/148-addiction-the-view-from-rat-park) "The view of addiction from Rat
Park is that today’s flood of addiction is occurring because our
hyperindividualistic, hypercompetitive, frantic, crisis-ridden society makes
most people feel social and culturally isolated. Chronic isolation causes
people to look for relief. They find temporary relief in addiction to drugs or
any of a thousand other habits and pursuits because addiction allows them to
escape from their feelings, to deaden their senses, and to experience an
addictive lifestyle as a substitute for a full life."

