1. We are a community of readers. Join us!

    Readup is a social reading platform. No ads. No distractions. No liking or upvotes. We help you pay attention to what matters: reading.

    AeonIrene McMullin2/19/2124 min
    3 reads5 comments
    10
    Aeon
    3 reads
    10
    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • DellwoodBarker
      Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
      1 month ago

      There is a lot to chew on here. Very deep; almost to a maddening head spin.

      Am I the only one being confronted with a lot of insanely confusing manifestation reflections in consciousness of what I don’t want rather than what I do? Navigating Work, relationships, housemates and living environment from a “good life” and first/second/third person perspective all feel morally bankrupt and complex in ways that not controlling a narrative and letting go is just making things all worse. It is really hard not to give into the nihilistic perspective when every vision and manifestation thread feels like a constant state of undoing rather than coming together. The moment I choose or make a decision I am bombarded with “do this” message instead. The moment I choose to elevate the stories I tell myself the stories are full of people saying and doing the contrary.

      All the info on narratives and everything above - while helpful- feel overwhelming at the same time.

      Ultimately, I understand all the arrows are pointing more to being alone more, sitting with self more, channeling energy previously focused towards desire/individual into projects and truly building the good life.

      As an only child - being told all of this is necessary - feels excruciating because I have felt alone for sooooo long. Even though I know I am not and I know I am loved by many.

      A lot existential crisis within here lately.

      To circle back around - A Lot to chew on here.

      1. Update (3/24/2021):

        This excerpt stood out to me:

        This means that life confronts us with a fundamental and irresolvable tension. We are tasked with negotiating competing legitimate normative claims – a plurality of goods – with no recourse to an ultimate metric or higher perspective through which to eliminate conflict in answering the basic existential questions to which we’re condemned: who should I be? What should I do? To whom am I beholden?

        This shouldn’t prompt us to embrace nihilism, but to recognise the only form that a good life can take for normatively fragmented creatures like ourselves. Leading a good human life – what is sometimes called flourishing – requires that we continuously negotiate these three competing ways of encountering goodness. Flourishing demands achieving a fragile and shifting balance between the different normative terrains. Flourishing is human excellence within each of these domains (self-fulfilment, good relationships, and responsiveness to the demands of a shared world) but achieved in such a way that success in one domain doesn’t unduly compromise success in another.

        Well okay, you might be thinking, but how do we know what to do in any particular circumstance? The approach outlined here – which emphasises the irresolvable messiness and conflict at the foundation of our moral lives – seems to have the drawback of not offering sufficient guidance for actually figuring out what one ought to do, at least compared with the resources provided by other moral theories.

        But those other approaches succeed in offering guidance by ignoring the moral complexity of being in the grip of an irreducible plurality of goods. This is not to oversimplify these positions, of course. Kantian deontology prioritises the third-person universality of reason, but we can see that it attempts to accommodate the other normative perspectives through the notions of respect for others (the second-person dimension) and respect for self (the first-person dimension). It essentially enjoins us to respect ourselves, respect others, and build a world in which all can be respected. As such, it maps well on to the tripartite moral terrain that I’ve specified above, but it tends to ignore the complexity that results, assuming that all three normative perspectives will subject you to the exact same moral demands.

      2. Update (3/24/2021):

        Right after writing the very silly existential crisis comment above the Universe dropped by with an apology, a gift, a smooch and I turned down a job that would’ve meant more security yet a mental health vulnerability.

        In other words. Feeling better. Feeling Love. Time to Show Up Today and pass this all on, as well.

        🪶🗽🙏🏼 Grateful 🙏🏼🗽🪶

    • Ruchita_Ganurkar
      Scout
      1 month ago

      Deep down, you've controlled the system, mortality leads your life.

      From the first-person stance, you navigate the world as an agent trying to realize your projects and satisfy your desires. From the second-person perspective, you understand yourself and the world through the lens of other people, who are a locus of projects and preferences of their own; projects and preferences that make legitimate demands on your time and attention. From the third-person stance, you understand yourself as one among many, called to fit yourself into the shared standards and rules governing a world made up of a multitude of creatures like you.