The, admittedly reductive, viewpoint I take: people who presumably “have it all” because they gained financial freedom are often depressed because they’ve earned a freedom that others told them they wanted.
Many of us are “pipelined”. The course of our lives is not determined by some conscious self-realization, but rather follows a prescribed track. I think (at least American) schooling is largely a failure because it does not teach self reflection. We fail students by failing to even introduce most of them to philosophical thinking. Instead, our schools are focused on teaching the skills required to produce laborers that will ultimately buoy up the economic system.
But the reality is, most people don’t want to be laborers, so when everything is framed like this we equate freedom with freedom from labor. But that isn’t the form of freedom most people really want. People want a more radical freedom grounded in self-fulfillment. All the FIRE folks chase freedom from labor but never spend any time doing philosophical reflection, thus they never realize how they actually want to self-define and shape their lives, thus they face ennui and depression once their grand battle for freedom from labor ends.
In other words, Sartre and De Beauvoir had much to teach us.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem. As a toy example, to become a world-class athlete in some sport tends to require you start around kindergarten. Naturally then, you cannot wait until you are twenty-five to become wise & discover your purpose & calling is to become a prodigy at that sport.
It's hard to discover all the world has to offer while still young enough to act upon it.
I think it's more about how can you make the most of your life despite being "pipelined". It's not realistic for everyone to pursue fulfillment by aiming to be world renowned in a specific area, for both the reasons you mentioned and there aren't enough areas where everyone to have their own individual hyperspecialized niche. However, your point does apply at a more modest level as well; if you're fulfillment requires costly institutional education, your socioeconomic background could close doors prematurely
The real truth of the world that nobody likes to acknowledge is just that. The vast majority of the population is 'pipelined' simply because it's logistically impossible for more than a few million people to be the 'best' (or even top 10) of the most obscure niches, even in our hyper specialized world.
Its hard to enlighten your way into happiness when you have an infection. I think alot of “happiness” is based in health, physical, emotional, and the health of those you interact with. Atleast those are somewhat quantifiable ways to avoid needless suffering.
For equivalent levels of wealth, people who think less are usually happier. The reason thinking causes happiness is that thinking tends to cause wealth.
Happiness is a thing, but the thing it is, is roughly just “whatever internal state is (largely involuntarily) reflected outwardly in order to indicate to others that things are going well (typically compared to some baseline) in one’s evaluation”.
One’s happiness is for others to see, so they know what is good for oneself. One should often work to further the happiness of others because this is often in many ways a pretty good proxy for what is to their benefit, but for oneself, one tends to have better access to what is to one’s benefit, and what one wants, than what one would get just by evaluating the impacts on one’s own happiness, instead of what that happiness is a proxy for. (Though possibly one might fool oneself about some things regarding what one wants, and taking into account one’s own happiness may at times help defend against fooling oneself this way?)
> Happiness is a thing, but the thing it is, is roughly just “whatever internal state is (largely involuntarily) reflected outwardly in order to indicate to others that things are going well (typically compared to some baseline) in one’s evaluation”.
Not at all necessary, there is plenty of literature -- and I know such people out there as well -- whose happiness almost doesn't manifest. It's an internal process and you can tell they are happy when you see them (facial expression, look in the eyes, general demeanor) but they in no shape or form try to indicate things are going well for them. Not by saying things on the topic, not by proving it with numbers (e.g. a number of houses/flats they own), and not even by trying to preach their approach to life to other people.
I meant that their facial expression, look in their eyes, etc. is an unconscious (and therefore harder to fake) signal of whether things are going well for them.
I didn't mean that people are happy when they intend to communicate that things are going well for them, but rather, happiness is that which leads them to unconsciously communicate it. (where by "going well for them" I mean like, "for what they care about". Someone could by in their dying moments, but receive very good news about e.g. their loved ones and their life's work, and be happy.)
Not sure about the cultural dig at the English (that was probably very context-dependent and an in-joke for Germans/German speakers). But in general, Nietzsche probably meant something like "Man strives for power" by which he might have meant something more like self-expression that raw physical or political power.
I would personally say that most people strive for meaning (as in, living a meaningful life) even if they think they are striving for "happiness", which to me comes off as a very shallow and hedonistic aim.
Contentedness, idle comfort, and calm recreation are things though. I’m sure a zillion other people could name the zillion times more things which either give them joy or which they could anticipate finding joy in. It’s not an empty observation that some subset (however ill defined) or people find disappointment finishing whatever their task. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your reference to philosophy, but I think it’s all too easy to use a philosophical observation that a concept isn’t “a thing” when what you mean is probably it’s an abstraction for lots of things with disparate factors and implications.
> but I think it’s all too easy to use a philosophical observation
that a concept isn't "a thing" when what you mean is probably it's
an abstraction for lots of things with disparate factors and
implications
Absolutely. And it's a bit of an empty neologism. What I'm getting at
is those things we think we've a solid definition of, but are slippery
and gets away. The "thing" is the misguided idea that there's a common
'object' there.
> people who presumably “have it all” because they gained financial freedom are often depressed…
Is this the case though? I know it’s not your main point, but it’s a premise that I think should be questioned. I can think of reasons why it probably wouldn’t be true, and I wouldn’t be surprised if data indicates that financial freedom correlates strongly with mental health. And I can think of many reasons why this popular notion (that the wealthy are often unfulfilled and miserable) might persist even if it’s not really true in general.
The, admittedly reductive, viewpoint I take: people who presumably “have it all” because they gained financial freedom are often depressed because they’ve earned a freedom that others told them they wanted.
Many of us are “pipelined”. The course of our lives is not determined by some conscious self-realization, but rather follows a prescribed track. I think (at least American) schooling is largely a failure because it does not teach self reflection. We fail students by failing to even introduce most of them to philosophical thinking. Instead, our schools are focused on teaching the skills required to produce laborers that will ultimately buoy up the economic system.
But the reality is, most people don’t want to be laborers, so when everything is framed like this we equate freedom with freedom from labor. But that isn’t the form of freedom most people really want. People want a more radical freedom grounded in self-fulfillment. All the FIRE folks chase freedom from labor but never spend any time doing philosophical reflection, thus they never realize how they actually want to self-define and shape their lives, thus they face ennui and depression once their grand battle for freedom from labor ends.
In other words, Sartre and De Beauvoir had much to teach us.