Is purpose the sole source of meaning, or can we find fulfillment in appreciating what we already have? Many of us strive for improvement, setting ambitious goals. However, in our ever-changing economy, the vast majority will never fully achieve or surpass these lofty aspirations. Amidst this struggle, I’ve lost enjoyment in many things, leading to a sense of inertia. The burden of consequences often outweighs the motivation to act.
Interestingly, our world teeters on the brink of a new industrial revolution, driven by factors like the economy, wars, and artificial intelligence. Jobs vanish at an accelerating pace. Yet, instead of addressing these critical issues, we squabble over trivial matters—fatty foods, censorship, and the authenticity of news. It’s as if we underestimate people’s ability to discern truth from falsehood.
But here’s a dilemma: Is it wrong to reject participation in a flawed system perpetuated by those higher up who set their own goals? After all, these objectives often come at the expense of others. Perhaps there’s merit in seeking an alternative path—one that prioritizes collective well-being over individual achievement or simply not being.
let’s explore the scenario where someone abandons their goals or steps out of the process. Is that inherently wrong? Consider: I actively work to create solutions that reduce staffing numbers and increase productivity, and it’s met with applause. With no consideration on the people I remove. Yet, when a long-term partner decides they lack fulfillment and believes having a child is the answer, we face a conundrum. Does not having a goal mean we merely add more humans to an already crowded pool? Is there no goals or meanings outside of procreation? We actively strive to use fewer humans for jobs, yet the population keeps growing. The competition for limited work intensifies.
And then there’s the matter of changing one’s mind about having children. We’re told to either agree or part ways, but rarely do we consider the emotional impact on the other person. It’s a delicate balance—one where solutions should account for others feelings. Yet we are told in the workplace to strike to reduce people required so they can maintain ever increasing profit. One is seen as greed yet the other is seen greatness. Where the one who doesn’t agree is ostracised.
Perhaps I’m weaving a tapestry of excuses to justify my feelings. Lately, joy has eluded me—I find mere existence to be a struggle. Is this a convenient excuse for feeling terrible, or does it stem from a chemical imbalance within my brain? I’m not seeking answers; instead, I’m merely stringing words together on this page.
Rather than experiencing joy in activities, I resist participation. Yet, outwardly, I wear the mask of an enjoyable person—the life of groups, the happy-go-lucky individual. Is this facade an attempt to shield others from the same internal turmoil? Is it caring that someone would act this way, or is it simple me being greedy and selfish? To me existence outside life’s boundaries appear more appealing than active participation.
And then there’s the haunting specter of constant depression and thoughts of suicide. Should I act to fix it or act upon it? Why is one path deemed correct while the other is taboo? If someone seeks solace in pills and therapy to “fix” their inner struggles, is that deviation from the norm—or perhaps, the truest form of courage?
I hope this rant, incoherent thoughts and word vomit are not taken too much out of context or believe I’m some nihilist.