>It is no accident that the young and the old are generally more satisfied with life than those in middle age.
I was sitting in my car looking at a stop sign the other day, and all of the sudden it started shaking uncontrollably. Immediately I knew it must be a child shaking it, as there was simply no other possibility. No other person would just stand there and shake a street sign for no purpose beyond its' own sake. There is no benefit, no reward, no ultimate reasoning beyond 'I want to shake this street sign". As I looked down, I was right, and the kid was grinning like crazy.
We lose the ability to think like that as adults. It's not even that we have the thought and then consciously decide against it; we're incapable of even conceiving it. To just 'play' in life. And I think it's the most important aspect of our humanity. It is the very genesis of all our innovative and creative ideas, yet we treat it as something to be expelled in the process of "growing up".
Shaking a red sign that says "STOP" seems infinitely more satisfying than shaking any other kind of sign.
I get a perverse pleasure out of setting my GPS destination far in the opposite direction of where I'm actually driving, so it constantly tries to talk me into turning around every exit, just so I can enjoy the simple pleasure of not doing what it tells me to do.
My son and I went 2 days home from Pittsburg, with the gps trying to get us to turn around and return to the waffle house just outside town. We enjoyed imagining behind its polite exterior, it colorfully swearing at us inside for systematically ignoring it.
Ha, literal rage against a machine! I find it interesting that you enjoy injecting artificial anxiety into your life. In contrast, I try to continuously minimize minor daily annoyances.
Try working for TomTom for a few years. Then you'll have a different perspective about those accursed "personal navigation devices".
They didn't appreciate my proposal to develop the TomTomagotchi: a PND with a simulated personality that begs you to drive it all around town to various points of interest it desires to visit in order to satisfy its cravings and improve its mood. I'm sure there's a revenue model getting drive through Burger Kings and car washes to pay for product placements.
Here are a couple of short hidden camera one minute movies about frustrated robots we made at the Stupid Fun Club.
Stupid Fun Club's "Servitude" One Minute Movie about Robot Servitude, written by Will Wright. Robot brain and personality simulation programmed by Don Hopkins.
Stupid Fun Club's "Empathy" One Minute Movie about Robot Empathy, written by Will Wright. Robot brain and personality simulation programmed by Don Hopkins.
I've spent a good amount of time thinking about why this change would occur. My current favorite hypothesis is that a playful mode/attitude emerges naturally when you find your circumstances to be 'okay'.
The playful mode seems to be characterized partly by open-ended exploration, and partly by lack of any definition of a 'correct result'.
When we lose the habit of entering the playful mode, it's in favor of another mode which carries out optimization processes on some desired goal state; you lose the 'absence of correct result definition' because there is a definitely some particular result you're looking for; likewise your exploration tends to be highly constrained and goal-directed.
A lot of distillation of Eastern ideas (primarily Buddhist and Taoist ideas) surrounding meditation focus on this distinction between 'modes'. The practice of meditation itself can help to let go of the driven/goal-oriented mind state, but a perhaps bigger part is taking earnest personal account of which things you really need in order to be content. The more things you're able to say you can do without, the fewer reasons you have to stay in the driven, non-playful mind state. (This is not to say you can't have goals: it's just a different way of dealing with them. The recommendation is to not set them up in such a way that things are not 'okay' until they are met.)
Isn't it simply that children have far less preconceptions of the world, as they haven't had time to form them, and that unstructured play is part of how children satisfy the in-built drive for novelty and understanding?
They need to play to make sense of the world. To a child, the most mundane things are genuinely fascinating and novel, as they haven't experienced them much yet.
Psychedelics are one way to reach this state of mind as an adult. They unravel our preconceptions a noticeable amount, transforming the mundane into something novel and fascinating yet again.
I think this perspective, with some effort, can be fostered as an adult as well. Of course, it's a balancing act.
I brought a similar situation up to a friend of mine a couple weeks ago from a different perspective. The condensed exchange goes like this: when you were a kid did you ever go knock on a kids door that you didn't know, nervously wait for them to answer and then when they finally arrived ask them if they want to play?
I have yet to meet an adult who didn't do this as a kid and my friend dutifully replied "hell yeah!"
The conclusion of the conversation was that that attitude was rad and that we should put ourselves in that situation or at least aware of the option as much as possible. With obvious caveats because we're both in our thirties, however taking that attitude as much as possible has both enriched our lives for the better in the ensuing weeks. The topic came up because I was reminiscing about my transition to adulthood and wondering what's changed in the two decades since and remembered that I had based my entire career on that attitude. I was a little disappointed in myself for having lost my way. I'm very greatful for the recollection because playing is really fun!
I think I still play, but it's a different kind of play. I don't think to shake a sign because it's not fun. I know exactly what happens if I do that--there's nothing novel. My play now involves deeper experiences, such as picking up new hobbies or trying to learn new subjects. This might be boring to a child, but only because they haven't built up the experience to appreciate it yet.
For me, I just think most play loses it's interest because the novelty is gone. I know or can guess pretty well what will happen, so I'd rather read a novel or article that tells me something new. Or make something. Or bring something back to order. It's not all bad. And when I want to play, I do. Why else would I chase my chickens around the yard with a remote control buggy?
There is no benefit, no reward, no ultimate reasoning beyond 'I want to shake this street sign". As I looked down, I was right, and the kid was grinning like crazy.
Actually, there was benefit and reward for the kid shaking the sign.
The kid is trying out some things, learning about the world. Answering questions about the world such as: How strong and stable is this sign? Can I shake it like a tree branch? What sound will the shaking make? How strong am I? Am I strong enough to move this sign, even a little?
You likely have a good estimate of your own strength, and the how well the sign is installed, so you don't feel much need to shake it and learn its and your own limits.
I still do similar things. I tend to tap / rap with my knuckles things like steel stair railings. Some of them can make interesting and long-lasting notes, while with others the best you can get is a dull "thud".
I would love to do more stuff like that, but frequently refrain, as I know that as a grown man much of it would alarm people. It’s my least favourite part of being an adult. I likewise can no longer wander through people’s property.
(I still do things like that when they aren’t potentially alarming)
We've banned this account for posting too many unsubstantive and flamebaity comments to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
It's worth noting with near 100% certainty that aggressively shaking a stop sign is illegal in probably all jurisdictions. Especially if it looks like it is shaking uncontrollably. Now I'm not getting mad at the kid, but there is a very good reason your adult brain doesn't automatically think about shaking that sign (and then commanding your body to go do it).
The kid, if faced with a police officer after the event, will of course get off free. They didn't really do any damage. But adults know that shaking that sign so hard could cause real, expensive damage, and that aggressively attacking public safety infrastructure is a bad idea.
It's a good thing that your brain knows about the sign. The kid is learning about the sign for the first time maybe, but you know about it. You know what it is and the value of a human life that it might save if it is not ripped down and requiring repairs.
> You would have to shake that sign pretty damn hard to do damage.
You don't know that. There are at least thousands, perhaps millions, of stop signs across America that are not securely placed into the ground. Sidewalks are cracking, some stop signs are old and getting older in the elements, etc.
If everyone in the US went out and shook a stop sign hard, we've be faced with millions of dollars in repairs and a very dangerous interim period without full stop sign coverage.
I'm obviously taking the extreme angle here. But America is laced with heavy regulation in the safety of its infrastructure to avoid simple failures like falling stop signs. Obviously there's no great effort to tear down all the top signs that would require a law against it - but I guarantee you that these signs are protected against vandalism and for good reason.
Sure it is, if you weaken the sign and make it lean, or even worse, fall. Adults brains are wired to not take those risks, even if they are unlikely, because they are dangerous and bad.
The kid has weaker arms, doesn't know the importance of the sign, and is vastly less likely to do damage. That's why we generally let them do it if they want to. But if 10 million adults all started doing it, you can bet there would be arrests.
It's not a bad thing that adults are less likely to go to town shaking stop signs uncontrollably. That would be risky and it's a-okay our brains know that.
There's a difference between shaking a sign and breaking a sign. The wind shakes them all the time. If someone was ever arrested for shaking a sign, I would seriously question (even more so) whether our society's good intentions paved our road to hell.
Yes, I know - you're missing the point I'm making. Adults brains are less likely to go shake the sign, as it might break and that would have major consequences. The kid doesn't know this, and it's also less likely for major issues to arise, so the situation is different and we generally don't get upset at kids for shaking the sign.
The OP said that the sign in their story was shaking "uncontrollably". That word means something here - it means the sign was really shaking. Adults don't normally do that because it carries a real, physical risk both in damaging the property but also harming another person. It's not just innocent play for an adult to go shaking stop signs on the street - it's downright dangerous.
My point is that it is a good thing that adults don't go around shaking signs. We shouldn't be concerned about not being kids anymore just because we have the maturity to know about risk and health. It's not a bad thing that we know it's not acceptable to go around shaking signs uncontrollably.
>the sign in their story was shaking "uncontrollably"
Well, as uncontrollably as a kid could shake it.
>We shouldn't be concerned about not being kids anymore just because we have the maturity to know about risk and health. It's not a bad thing that we know it's not acceptable to go around shaking signs uncontrollably.
I think someone worried about the dangers and health risks of shaking a sign might be a little anxious. I don't shake signs because it would be boring, but this conversation has reinvigorated my interest in shaking stop signs! Next time I go for a walk and walk by a stop sign, my brain will make me shake it, and I will smile.
I would say that we "lose" that playful ability for reason. As we age and have more responsibilities, time spent doing things that have "no benefit, no reward, no ultimate reasoning" means time not spent fulfilling other responsibilities.
One may argue that playfulness fosters creativity that eventually helps us fulfill other responsibilities better (e.g. create a more innovative startup, be a more playful parent). This is the classic trade off between exploration and exploitation. We tend to explore early on, then exploit the gained knowledge later.
> We lose the ability to think like that as adults. ... To just 'play' in life
I still think that way, sometimes, it's just I don't like drawing attention to myself. But other times, I just say "screw it". On Saturday I was the only adult joining their kids on the indoor waterslide. And it was a great slide and I loved it.
I don't think we're incapable of conceiving it, I think this is very much cultural.
While we should avoid "playfulness" that comes at the expense of the greater good, like kicking a garbage over, or other kind of destructive play. I think its possible for adults to "play", but we'd need to change our culture to allow it.
I'd say a big part of playfulness is about engaging with others in a trustful and open manner. Something I feel our culture makes quite difficult. Going dancing for example is a good form of playfulness, yet is culturally a source of anxiety for most of the western world. To play with other adults makes most of us anxious, how messed up is that!?!
Similarly, to learn and explore as an adult is a source of anxiety, because our culture does not allow adults to be novice at something without judging or ridiculing. As an adult, you feel ashamed to start learning something new from scratch, that's why most people who learn things from scratch as adults do it with activities where they can learn it in secret, by themselves.
Lastly, time is a problem. We've given up our play time as adults, our culture is designed this way. We don't value time to play, we value making more money. People want to be rich, not play more.
I think this is all just cultural, as from where I'm from, these norms are not as strong as where I live now. Where I'm from I know of many more adults who's idea of a perfect life is to just live in a modest house, singing, dancing, playing music, chatting over dinner with good friends and family. To have time for your hobbies, and to just be able to relax and appreciate the passing of time.
My preservation of that childlike joy is why I have $500 of ball pit balls and why I often make a one liner to an empty room in response to an unfortunate event, then look at a non existent camera in order to break the fourth wall. It's pointless fun, but myself and the cosmos appreciate it.
Interesting thought. I'm 32 and I still have these playful thoughts. What's more interesting is that when I act some people look at me in a weird way since it is not expected of me. Not like I give a damn though. I know better.
>We lose the ability to think like that as adults. It's not even that we have the thought and then consciously decide against it; we're incapable of even conceiving it.
i wholeheartedly disagree - you simply fall out of the habit of it. when i was in college i had a lot of sleepless nights and i wandered around campus "pulling on doorknobs". yes sometimes i got into places that i shouldn't have been but that's besides the point: i got back into the habit of touching things and experimenting. this was almost a decade ago now and i still pull on doorknobs, kick sign posts, peak through construction site barriers (nyc is perfect for this because every construction site fence has portholes). really of course the problem is obvious: people that don't think it's cute/funny/interesting are really put off by it (social pressure). young kids have less of that mediating their experience of their world (that's the key)
I don't avoid those things because of social pressure.
I don't try random doorknobs because I wouldn't want people intruding on my space if I happened to leave a door unlocked by accident -- the fact that kids (and some adults apparently) don't think through such things is not some sort of admirable trait.
I don't shake sign posts for fun because I've had to fix enough things in my life that I know how actions like that can weaken or destroy an object that most people consider very durable (or indestructible) and therefore would amount to vandalism for the sake of "fun".
i can't fathom the subjecthood of the person wishing someone would interfere (this is a savannah in subsaharan africa presumably - there is no such thing as fair - it's a completely unintelligible notion). now it sounds like a young girl doing the lamenting so it makes sense that i can't relate.
now you internet person
>the fact that kids (and some adults apparently) don't think through such things is not some sort of admirable trait.
i can't fathom your subject that you so miss the point that it is exactly this childhood naivete that the op is commenting on. of course children don't think through such things - they're children! they have no sense of property or privacy (nor should they!). this is exactly what op is saying he misses.
besides that the sentence as written is essentially the negation of op's and so adds nothing. it doesn't suggest why it's important that no one intrude on your space, it doesn't explain why it's important for people to have private spaces, it doesn't explore anything. it's literally a no to a yes.
>I don't shake sign posts for fun because I've had to fix enough things in my life that I know how actions like that can weaken or destroy an object that most people consider very durable (or indestructible) and therefore would amount to vandalism for the sake of "fun".
you can choose to ascribe malice or mischief to everything that's the slightest destructive, you are free to do so, but you should at least for a moment consider whether conservation isn't the ultimate goal of life.
I didn't criticize kids for their naivete. I was pointing out that I don't think that sort of naivete is something to aspire to. If a kid breaks something because they didn't think through the foreseeable consequences, I don't necessarily attribute that to malice. But I hold adults to a different standard and I don't consider avoiding destruction of public or private property to be an issue of "conservation" but one of respect for my neighbors.
I'm all for people trying to recapture the wonder and excitement of their youth. Maybe it was just two unfortunate examples that struck me as things that adults should not be aspiring to do...
Im not so sure that "thinking through" is so pure in value as you think it to be. Many grown ups have quite a lot of biases factor into there thinking through- where situations basically hash to a solution and the "thinking" through is avoided at all.
Kids do not have that, they can develop novel approaches and they really have to think- they dont even have work to escape from the difficult questions. So this is where the future comes from. Beeing childish and able to fail is a bon.
If you think kids don't have a lot of biases factoring into such decisions or don't hash situation into solutions, you don't interact closely with kids. They have different, more simplistic, set of biases, but biases nevertheless and they tend to be very strong.
Kids very often just repeat whatever worked last time in very superficially similar situation and the smaller they are, they less likely they are to actually think through those situations. It seems like inventing something novel only if you don't know the kid and don't know what situation the kid is repeating.
I think this is caused more by being aware of consequences.
In VR games, I have found that childlike feeling again. I wander around trying to touch everything, if there is anything I can pick up, I will likely do childish things with, including seeing how far I can throw it or what I can hit with it. I often do some mini-roleplays by performing actions that aren’t strictly required by the game and serve no real purpose. And sometimes I just try to break shit sticking my head and body into places it didn’t belong.
And then you have social games like VRChat that feels like you’re playing amongst a bunch of rowdy immature children, sometimes because the people actually are a bunch of children!
This piece hits close to home, as it's really clear to me I am going through a midlife crisis and have interesting parallels and contrasts with the author in terms of my career and next steps.
What seems to me to be the heart of this piece is the telic-atelic distinction, which seems useful and deserving of more attention. There's some parallels, it seems, between the telic-atelic distinction on the one hand, and the distinction between more stereotypical "western" goal-oriented notions of success or happiness, and recent foci of mindfulness and other things having a kind of Buddhist bent. To me the telic-atelic distinction seems useful if for no other reason than to provide an additional historical and philosophical context to something gaining in the public consciousness. The atelic ideal seems similar to the mindfulness goals, but framed differently, in terms of types of rewards.
For me, although useful, I'm not sure this explains all of the midlife crisis. Maybe a big chunk, but for me personally at least I'd say more of it is about feeling like I took a wrong turn with certain choices, and feeling like there's no way to get out of it due to the limits of lifespan and sociocultural failings (e.g., stereotypes about age, gender, and profession, and ability to change, etc.). For me it's been less about asking "is this all there is?" and more like feeling like I've come to the conclusion that my vocation is a fraud, or that I'm not a good fit, and that humans in general are far more flawed and darker than I realized. There were similar feelings about other things in my early adulthood, but I always felt I could change my life, improve things, and move to something else; the difference is now, I feel like the change is more substantial due to the costs and investments involved, and I feel like societal stereotypes and failings make it harder. There's also the limitations of lifespan which are very real and make things difficult.
I feel profoundly disappointed in life and people, in the sense of being wronged, not in the sense of being bored. I don't want to feel this way, but am not sure how to get out of it.
I also really liked the telic-atelic distinction and would like to read more about it. But this:
> stereotypical "western" goal-oriented notions of success or happiness
is probably more "American" than "western". Look at the laissez-faire life of the French, Spanish or Italians and the typical German surely doesn't thrive for success but for a stable, comfortable life.
That goal-hunting and search for exceptionalism is certainly spreading in the world but I would think that the American culture is maybe the only one where it is really rooted.
>> I feel profoundly disappointed in life and people, in the sense of being wronged
I suspect there is a notion of "things ought to be a certain/right way" in your view of things. I feel this defense is often used to justify to oneself why one hasn't engaged in something/the world. Said another way, it is safer to think things should work a certain way instead of risking for oneself to find out. It's never too late to find out directly.
I also feel like I made some wrong turns in my life and turn in the right direction is almost impossible now: career- and, what is the saddest part, family-wise. It just feels like it's too late for everything to get back on track. Damn. I'll be 35 in a couple of months :(
My advice would be, if you're not already, take up some kind of sport/exercise like running, join a club.
If that doesn't work, buy a motorcycle... Actually get one anyway, it is the traditional way.
Years ago I accidentally came across a really good book that explores Schopenhauer's fascinating worldview through the lens of psychiatry and personal development, called "The Schopenhauer Cure", which got me hooked on Schopenhauer (and a lesser extent Nietzsche):
https://www.amazon.com/Schopenhauer-Cure-Novel-Irvin-Yalom/d...
I highly recommend it to people who would consider themselves on the logical/intelligent end of the spectrum and who tend to pursue their work, accomplishments, and gaining knowledge above all else in life.
It's also a great soft introduction to his work, without having to read dense 19th century philosophy.
One of the most useful lessons I learn from Schopenhauer was to look beyond structuring your life around trying to be "happy" and avoiding being "sad", and instead seek some deeper meaning beyond some fleeting emotional chemical reactions in your brain. It makes me laugh now when
I now laugh when I hear people say "money doesn't make you happy", not so much for the money part, but the fallacy of using an emotion like "being happy" as the measure for a quality life.
> I now laugh when I hear people say "money doesn't make you happy", not so much for the money part, but the fallacy of using an emotion like "being happy" as the measure for a quality life.
Oh come on. You know what they mean, you're being deliberately obtuse in order to characterize someone else as ignorant. Which only reflects badly on you.
That old cliche may be trite and simplistic, but it's making a simple point that sometimes needs to be made; money won't solve all of your problems.
Of course it does solve a lot of really bad problems, so it's also a bit of a myopic view.
> you're being deliberately obtuse in order to characterize someone else as ignorant
That was merely one example of the phenomenon of our culture being obsessed with 'happiness' as the measure of success. There are countless other examples I could have used which doesn't require reading into someone's 'real meaning' when using a cliche. The general point still stands, 'happy' is still frequently used interchangably with 'a good life' in our culture.
I can't count the amount of times I've heard people negatively judge other successful people's lives because they seemed dour or aren't walking around laughing/smiling all the time or some other surface level measures. That to me is what is arrogant.
Nor because I laugh (in my head) when I come across people chasing temporary emotional highs or measuring the quality of other's lives based on that doesn't mean I'm belittling them or looking down upon them because they haven't made the same realizations or made similar psychological/philosophical/personal investments in their own life. I spent a big portion of my life doing the same, doesn't make me better.
I read his magnum opus in college: The World as Will and Representation (in german, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung). It's quite long and dense, but essentially presents a kind of dualistic philosophy that doesn't necessarily need any kind of supernatural mechanisms.
I don't necessarily subscribe to his beliefs or world view, but I found them quite interesting. I particularly enjoyed the later stages of the book that discussed pessimism, suicide, why suicide is not the correct answer to pretty much any problem, and other such "dark" themes. Anyone can write the "happy path" of philosophy, so to speak, but Schopenhauer clearly trod a more melancholy path.
Yea I never understood this modern obsession. Doesn't even make sense. Definition of mind is 'something that seeks' and seeking is contradictory to 'happiness'.
Only way to be 'happy' is that if you mind is not functioning, dead.
My wife loves finishing a picture puzzle, the sense of accomplishment at creating order out of chaos helps her relax. I can't stand them, they are dull and repetitive and in the end you just have the same picture that was already on the box. A decade ago, I built a simple set of wooden stairs to replace the existing, poorly built concrete set. To this day I get a little burst of joy when I use them. People are different and get satisfaction from different goals, that's pretty obvious to most people. However, it can be difficult to find out what you actually gives you joy. Some of the people I know struggling with midlife issues went through life believing some great goal would be worth it, but once achieved, the found it lacking. It would be like if I spent 20 years building a great picture puzzle. I'd be having a major crisis when it was done. Academia is a big offender because you can't know if you'll be satisfied until you get there, and getting there takes a decade or two.
Furthermore, what you get satisfaction from can change. Build a bunch of puzzles or stairs, and you may find it dull and unrewarding. I don't find actual coding as rewarding as it used to be, but I find design and problem solving much more interesting.
I think the young and old part is misleading. People can get in such a malaise at any time. The key is finding the trick and techniques to get out of it, or even better, avoiding it in the first place.
I've got this bad, I am (or at least was) the stereotypical high achiever. I even have a sports car in the garage (don't do that, btw :).
I've decided to slow down and focus on my family and myself, in pursuits that have no real reward except the enjoyment of the experience itself. "Being present", they say.
Ultimately, I'm planning on getting out of the Bay Area to find something with less stress. I had a good run but the constant battle to climb higher just seems so silly now; I finally recognized the pattern of not having any real lasting happiness upon hitting some big achievement (the raise, the promotion, the qualification, whatever).
My new modus operandi: Work to ensure there is money in the bank so I can retire as I'd like to, and then focus on family, friends, myself.
hey, don't forget to enjoy each day as it comes. loss can come at any time. focus on your family, friends and yourself THEN work. you can get everything you need done OK.
As a programmer approaching mid-life, I haven't found myself succumbing to this crisis. I wonder if that is largely due to the fact that gaining and maintaining expertise in programming is much more akin to these atelic activities he discusses. You can never really be done improving your skills.
Projects come and go, but the buzz and hum of the new is constant and unreachable. For an autodidact like me, the thrill of learning something new is also a process I enjoy.
You have to enjoy the process of whatever it is you're doing. If your enjoyment relies totally on goals, that's how you end up in the situation Schopenhauer believed we are trapped in.
Goals are good but you have to enjoy the journey. This is no big mystery. But it's something a lot of people overlook because choosing a goal is how you get started on a journey.
True, and I think ultimately it is merely a fault in our thinking. Many people think "I'm going to suffer through this process because the end goal is worth it."
Where they are wrong is equating a process that does not necessarily bring pure pleasure and joy with "suffering."
You must be able to change your state of mind to see that there is no concept of pleasure without pain, there is no warmth without cold, and there is no joy without sadness. When we are sad, we should embrace it and revel in it as a natural part of life.
>then the solution is to invest more fully in the process, giving meaning to your life through activities that have no terminal point
There has to be a potential endpoint or else there's no meaning. Pick a hard problem which you find intensely meaningful and take small steps each day towards solving it.
As Karl Popper put it:
'I think there is only one way to do science – or to do philosophy for that matter; to meet a problem, to see its beauty and fall in love with it; to get married to it, and to live with it happily, till death do ye part - unless you should meet another and even more fascinating problem, or unless indeed you should obtain a solution. But even if you do obtain a solution you may then discover to your delight, the existence of a whole family of enchanting though perhaps difficult problem children for whose welfare you may work, with a purpose to the end of your days'
Popper was a fan of Schopenhauer - while he rejected Schopenhauer's metaphysics of the Will, he positively quotes Schopenhauer in Open Society and its Enemies (especially in regards to Hegel). There's also evidence that Popper's interpretation of Kant is through Schopenhauer: the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the first book of World as Will and Representation, and the appendix to the first volume also function as a good emendation of and commentary upon on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Prolegomena.
I've gotten to a point where to me "results-oriented" is a four letter word. It's just a bad way to go about your life. Both for your sanity, and because it's more often than not just a wrong-headed way of thinking.
I often have to remind myself that life is a series of processes interspersed with end-points, if you don't enjoy the process of getting to those endpoints you'll basically live in a series of panics.
Many middle aged people are giving their entire lives to the generations older and younger. That general happiness curve over a lifetime seems to correspond with the level of responsibilities one has.
But I suspect also that we are very much more programmed as far as our values and goals than we realize, and middle age as a natural point in life where depression sets in, a subconcious rebellion/angst against a life we are living that is fradulent not in tune with our true selves.
>a natural point in life where depression sets in, a subconcious rebellion/angst against a life we are living that is fradulent not in tune with our true selves.
This is interesting because I feel like after the war I came back a middle aged man at 24 due to this feeling. I went through the motions in my professional career, but it all seemed so empty compared to what I used to do... so I spent the last ten years or so of my free time my career supported trying to study geopolitical and geostrategic issues because I found meaning in trying to understand why things are/were so damn fucked up, so perhaps as a problem solver I could fix some of them. (I have what are probably ridiculous aspirations of a presidential run someday.)
So I was living a half fraudulent life in order to live a half self-true life, and the tension between the two was palpable.
Near death (and near life) experiences really have a way of breaking that societal programming fast though. It's like when I went through what I call my Descartes reset. I took the red pill with the concious decision that I wanted to know the truth no matter how ugly it is... but that doesn't negate much of just how much impact the ugliness of truth can have on a person. Many people seem to have a subconcious awareness that they would prefer the beautiful lie due to that, but for some reason middle age tends to be the point in which those two forces butt heads, and sometimes people change course at that point.
That's why I used to joke I was getting my midlife crisis out of the way early. The joke was on me though, ten years later I still struggle with that dichotomy. I'll finally be 35 in 2020, so do I pursue the grand purpose path and just try my hand at a run for POTUS despite my trepidations or do I focus on establishing a more down to earth life and focus on just living it while I can!? I don't know yet, but I do know that at some point soon I will have to make that decision and follow through with it.
The real point is that I think we should self-analyze enough to make these decisions conciously before the uglier side-effects of dealing with them subconciously rear their heads in often desctructive ways, such as a midlife crisis.
At least one answer to the conundrum of "not getting what you want is suffering; getting what you want is, too" that Schopenhauer identifies is serendipity.
life/the universe/fate/god/chance/whatever will cause positives (and negatives) in your life that you didn't actively want. Since you never sought them out, not having them wasn't suffering. Now that you have them, appreciate them!
I think an adult extracts joy from other sources, which kids (or undeveloped adults) can't appreciate yet. The kid shakes the sign because for him it's a novelty, a new experience. He is curious about the world and discovers it through little 'experiments'.
But adults do the same, they learn new things, they have hobbies, visit new places, try out new foods, learn new languages, work on personal projects...
While even Scott Adams will tell you to never take life advice from a cartoonist, his post on the meaning of life is a slightly different take then the one in the article and I find it inspiring.
In a nutshell, we need to give more to others as we age.
>the solution is to invest more fully in the process, giving meaning to your life through activities that have no terminal point
Are there such activities? Even the more process-oriented ones, lacking final conclusions, have terminal milestones. The juggler will eventually master 4 balls; the violinist Paganini, etc.
Activities like preparing food for the homeless, tutoring poor kids etc., seems not to have terminal milestones to me. Please do correct me if I am wrong
I was sitting in my car looking at a stop sign the other day, and all of the sudden it started shaking uncontrollably. Immediately I knew it must be a child shaking it, as there was simply no other possibility. No other person would just stand there and shake a street sign for no purpose beyond its' own sake. There is no benefit, no reward, no ultimate reasoning beyond 'I want to shake this street sign". As I looked down, I was right, and the kid was grinning like crazy.
We lose the ability to think like that as adults. It's not even that we have the thought and then consciously decide against it; we're incapable of even conceiving it. To just 'play' in life. And I think it's the most important aspect of our humanity. It is the very genesis of all our innovative and creative ideas, yet we treat it as something to be expelled in the process of "growing up".