A philosophical problem that has bothered me for a long time

[Tannhauser]

There are those philosophical problems one saves for the weekend, and then there are those that actually influence your decisions. I think this is one of the latter.

When I see people who have achieved great things, they invariably have this trait: they live with a strong narrative, a certain blindness to alternative ways of looking at things. I.e. they have made up their minds about certain things, made judgements about them, and simply stopped considering the alternatives. These people are often considered charismatic and inspiring.

I think that people who think a lot (for example many INTPs) happen to not have a very strong narrative. To them, everything can be questioned and re-evaluated at any given point in time, so it is hard to have a consistent narrative on which to base one's goals and behaviours. Sure, I have a strong narrative from time to time, but it is usually temporary – until I find some new angle from which to view things.

On one hand, this constant rethinking of things does not really lead you anywhere. Sometimes you even end up walking in circles. Because in the end, every narrative contains a lot of subjective judgements – it is merely a matter of personal choice. On the other hand, to someone who is constantly on the search for truth, committing to one narrative is, in some sense, mental suicide; I cannot simply stop thinking about things. Being able to think about these things is a certain freedom that a lot of people do not have. It also entails a certain humility towards alternative viewpoints – possibly what some people call "open-mindedness".

So the question is: what to do with this freedom. giving it up to commit to one goal, or keep it and expose yourself to the possibility of walking in circles forever?

 

[Yellow]

I think there's a third path: remaining both goal-oriented and open-minded. Like Sir Richard Branson, or Elon Musk. While both men certainly appear to live with a strong narrative, neither appear to be blind to alternatives. In fact, I'd say the key to their many combined successes has been an open, flexible mind that is always searching for new ideas and possibilities.

Some of us struggle with indecision, apprehension, procrastination, self-doubt, rumination, and difficulty with follow-through. These issues sometimes accompany an open mind, but they are not married concepts.

If anything, a constant search for "the truth", as if there is only one, could be considered a comparatively narrowed world view. However, not even that journey precludes success. I'd say it just requires one to keep an even more open mind.

 

[Rualani]

First idea: It's visibility you're seeing.

Second idea: The part of the brain that deals with positive moods, also happens to favor good story telling. The factors that help it along, also happen to help someone be successful.

Third idea: Give in and start weaving a wonderful story about your life. A naive child wandered through the forums lost and broken inside, until he was inspired by something he read. Suddenly, the wall between thought and actions SHATTERED, and a new path was forged from the fragments.

Fourth idea: Magic mushrooms, or break down in tears at societies displeasure towards entheogens.

Fifth idea: This idea that success in reality it dependent on everything that YOU ARE NOT is too burdensome. Fallout 4 and Starcraft: LOTV

P.S. I'm bad at story-weaving.

 

[Intolerable]

Everything becomes binary (true or false) at a certain depth. I think those great people you mention have probably explored their goals a great deal and have exhausted most possibilities. Enough so to warrant a good deal of confidence in speaking of the subject.

Or they're not really interested in the truth but something else. A financial motive maybe.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Work is for rent and food so you can keep being you.

 

[emmabobary]

I don´t know how to give a definitive response to your dilema.
But to me, between seeing myself with a set up goal, or with a freedom of mind. I would say I´m none of those things.
I know where I want to go, yet I´m allowed to do as I please, to create and follow the paths I decide. To have a goal, doesn´t mean that you can´t enjoy the rest of the landscape. One should be free to explore new ways of doing things.

Maybe you´re not actually running in circles, after all that movement could also take you up, to something bigger. A question worth asking would be: do you feel that this rythm of life is taking you somewhere?

Also, I really hate to think that people around me telling me that my dreams are too crazy, that are too much, that only people who have some specific features can make it; can sometimes get me into their stupid beliefs. So seriously, fuck that. There´s no definitive recipe for success, there´s no definitive definition for success. I´m not obliged to fit in the mold, to follows the exact steps of other people to achieve some second hand kind of happiness.

 

[Tannhauser]

Work is for rent and food so you can keep being you.

That is exactly the half measure I am trying to avoid. I am talking about the ultimate Yes or the ultimate No.

 

[Brontosaurie]

That is exactly the half measure I am trying to avoid. I am talking about the ultimate Yes or the ultimate No.

Half-measure is adapting identity to work.

You want to become a god who doesn't need to work or eat or sleep. You want your life to be the perfect dramatization of a brilliant man.

Your standards are too high. Try suffering, loneliness and boredom, then return and dare call friendship, love, creativity, insight and personal development a "half measure".

Sorry to sound brash. I am declaring my impressions with no harmful intent.

Not "succeeding" in the narrow terms of prestige has nothing to do with "walking in circles".

Do you harbor the mind virus of an extremely demanding parent? Your vain aspiration is not becoming on your cool intellect.

Marxism is mostly crap but labor alienation is a reality. Also automation is a reality. There's actual stuff. Then there's you. A large mind with clear potential for stuff rejection and spiritual catharsis.

I'll just go ahead and end this post with an "everything i'm saying might be complete bullshit" disclaimer as has become my standard lately (in this case the possible bullshit is probably something about projection and envy)

 

[Tannhauser]

Half-measure is adapting identity to work.

You want to become a god who doesn't need to work or eat or sleep. You want your life to be the perfect dramatization of a brilliant man.

Your standards are too high. Try suffering, loneliness and boredom, then return and dare call friendship, love, creativity, insight and personal development a "half measure".

Sorry to sound brash. I am declaring my impressions with no harmful intent.

Not "succeeding" in the narrow terms of prestige has nothing to do with "walking in circles".

Do you harbor the mind virus of an extremely demanding parent? Your vain aspiration is not becoming on your cool intellect.

Marxism is mostly crap but labor alienation is a reality. Also automation is a reality. There's actual stuff. Then there's you. A large mind with clear potential for stuff rejection and spiritual catharsis.

I'll just go ahead and end this post with an "everything i'm saying might be complete bullshit" disclaimer as has become my standard lately (in this case the possible bullshit is probably something about projection and envy)

For me, the problem is not the distinction between success and being a regular worker or whatever. The basic problem is: how do you commit to any set of principles or aspirations, knowing that your existence is not necessary, and that in the end, nothing means anything and that everything can be questioned at any point in time. These aspirations might be pertaining to "success" as it is defined by modernity, but it might also be something completely else – say, art, or religion, or any sort of purpose. The alternative to committing to a purpose, as I see it, is to just be a leaf in the wind – let people around you dictate your life, let commercials dictate your wants and desires.

Of course, this problem is mostly "solved" for the average person out there, because they are given a narrative from the outset: work, make a family, retire, die. This is what they believe they have to do. If you ask them "why", they just get angry and defensive, because it is probably not something they have thought about at all.

Yellow proposed the third alternative: keep the knowledge but still commit to a goal. I view that as a beautiful thing, and possibly the only real option. But in that case you still have the problem that on daily basis, you remind yourself that nothing you do really means anything (and moreover – what will prevent you from eventually questioning the goal itself unless you indeed have a religious belief in it?).

If we are talking about people like Musk, his narrative, from what I have understood, is that he is a sort of modern-day Messiah who is destined to save humankind from extinction, by making electric cars and eventually shipping people over to Mars or whatever. What would be interesting, is to know how often Musk recalls that humankind will disappear eventually anyway, along with the whole universe, and that none of what he does actually means anything. If he does that on a regular basis and still manages to do what he does, then he holds the solution to the problem.

 

[onesteptwostep]

^ There's a contradiction in there somewhere.

I read clarity in your posts, but the clarity is only in language and not in thought.

The first option you outlined was a nihilism, but then you equate a broad categorizational concept with it which offers no depth. After doing so, there's an invocation of an apparent third route, which ultimately seems to be a rehash of the first option. What is individualism? Maybe the ones who are seemingly in a narrative of nihilism are performing that exact same performance? Maybe the axiom of "someone's junk is someone else's treasure" applies here. And of course this itself can be interpreted in many different ways..

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think you need to be your own purpose and hold on to not holding on to externals.

 

[Minuend]

Yellow proposed the third alternative: keep the knowledge but still commit to a goal. I view that as a beautiful thing, and possibly the only real option. But in that case you still have the problem that on daily basis, you remind yourself that nothing you do really means anything

I only skimmed but

Why do you have to remind yourself of that everyday? Life is what it is (or is not) but that doesn't really need to have anything to do with what you choose to do with your life. Why does it have to matter whether existence has a purpose or not? Whether what you choose to do will matter or not in the grand scheme?

You have a set of knowledge that you make decisions based on, that doesn't mean you can't continuously revise that information and change direction if realizing error. Even failing in that will most probably give you more insight, knowledge and perspective than sitting around doing nothing because you can't know what's the right thing to do is.

You don't have to give all information equal attention. If this question still baffles you, then leave it in the background until you reach a point in your life where you'll able to make sense of it. Prioritize other things.

 

[MosMaiorum]

For me, the problem is not the distinction between success and being a regular worker or whatever. The basic problem is: how do you commit to any set of principles or aspirations, knowing that your existence is not necessary, and that in the end, nothing means anything

Your existence is "not necessary" to achieve what end? Who decided on this end?

"Nothing means anything" to whom? To you?

and that everything can be questioned at any point in time.

What's the problem with that?

These aspirations might be pertaining to "success" as it is defined by modernity, but it might also be something completely else – say, art, or religion, or any sort of purpose. The alternative to committing to a purpose, as I see it, is to just be a leaf in the wind – let people around you dictate your life, let commercials dictate your wants and desires.

Nothing wrong with being a leaf in the wind. I think that's a good analogy for the human condition. While being pushed around by forces outside of its control, a leaf still maintains its internal structure; it interacts with the wind.

Honestly, I don't see what the philosophical problem is.

 

[Haim]

Neither options are necessarily right or wrong,more like left or right(while there are left and than right and then up and then down paths).There are successful people in both sides,there are people that are successful because of their broad knowledge,like writers,they would not be interesting if they only had a small world knowledge.
This decision,what to focus,what to not focus,the ability to do it well is what I call the genius quality.Going to places other people have not,this is not just luck like they say in the news articles about successful games and applications(which to lesser extent also have that genius quality).
The way they choose to walk,what to learn ,what to explore in their minds,that is what enabled them to be called a genius.
As I can not tell you how to be smart,I can not tell you what to choose,your problem.

 

[Analyzer]

Who do you look up to? What do you want out of your life?

Many Successful, Ambitious, and Rich people face the problem of what to do with their time and money. You talk about walking in circles, but what do such people actually end up doing?

 

[MosMaiorum]

Here's a philosophical perspective that you would perhaps find interesting, OP (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapffe#Contentions):

[Peter Wessel] Zapffe's theory is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

In The Last Messiah Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

• Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".
• Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness". The anchoring mechanism provides individuals a value or an ideal that allows them to focus their attentions in a consistent manner. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society, and stated "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future" are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
• Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions". Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
• Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.

(Further reading: Zapffe's The Last Messiah.)

 

[Tannhauser]

I only skimmed but

Why do you have to remind yourself of that everyday? Life is what it is (or is not) but that doesn't really need to have anything to do with what you choose to do with your life. Why does it have to matter whether existence has a purpose or not? Whether what you choose to do will matter or not in the grand scheme?

I guess your question can be rephrased: if you want to achieve a goal, does it matter whether you put intrinsic value in the goal or not?

In theory – perhaps not. In practice, knowing that I am human, then yes, I think so.

 

[Absurdity]

The basic problem is: how do you commit to any set of principles or aspirations, knowing that your existence is not necessary, and that in the end, nothing means anything and that everything can be questioned at any point in time.

You commit by committing, by accepting the impossible, by hoping your minuscule will and courage can encompass the infinite and unimaginable consequences of your actions. Your time is short, so live hard and fully.

This is what it is to be human.

 

[MosMaiorum]

I guess your question can be rephrased: if you want to achieve a goal, does it matter whether you put intrinsic value in the goal or not?

This question seems like nonsense to me. Value only exists in the subjective realm of human perception. If you were to set a goal, it would be implied that you put value into achieving it; that's just what the nature of a goal is.

 

[Tannhauser]

This question seems like nonsense to me. Value only exists in the subjective realm of human perception. If you were to set a goal, it would be implied that you put value into achieving it; that's just what the nature of a goal is.

Any fool can write up a goal in their diary. I am talking about committing to a goal as large as life itself – and to wake up every day filled with passion to pursue the goal.

 

[QuickTwist]

Any fool can write up a goal in their diary. I am talking about committing to a goal as large as life itself – and to wake up every day filled with passion to pursue the goal.

Such a thing does not exist imo. People always have to work hard to stick to their goals whether they do stick with them or not. To have a goal as a singular purpose in life is a nice idea that is really quite novel, but tbh, people will eventually doubt this goal so it does not come without struggle.

 

[Minuend]

I guess your question can be rephrased: if you want to achieve a goal, does it matter whether you put intrinsic value in the goal or not?

In theory – perhaps not. In practice, knowing that I am human, then yes, I think so.

You might say you don't think it matters when there's no intrinsic value. But if someone wanted to cut your arm off, you'd quickly come to realize you don't need any values delivered from the universe to get the hell out of there.

Intrinsic values doesn't matter, things in your life still matters to you.

So then the question becomes, what do you want out of your life? If doing close to nothing pondering how pointless it is, is positive to you, then I guess that's a valid choice for you. If however it involves stagnation and sulking, then I don't think it's an ideal choice. But it is still your choice to make if you find some sort of logic in that which's greater than the alternatives.

 

[The Grey Man]

I've read quite a few of your posts, Tannhauser, and I often find myself relating to you philosophically. Your original post here in particular is representative of how I feel about life. I think what makes the inability to genuinely stick to a strong narrative a problem in my case is the desire to make my thought and conduct proceed from a chimeric union between realistic description and quasi-realistic prescription, between grasping truth and righteousness. I want to be a self-assured zealot, but I can't find an acceptable first cause that would ultimately explain my behaviour. Maybe this is similar to what you feel, wanting to do something and actualize as an agent but struggling to find meaning.

Spoiler

It's the classic dichotomy between participants and observers in life. Both are dead to the other. One can be both insofar as he is not always alive. I have a feeling you and I are usually dead as far as the participant is concerned.

 

[Polaris]

Our antlers are too big. To be human is to realise the absurdity of our existence. It can be tormenting and interesting, but one can never unsee what one has seen. The view from the mountain top is both enlightening and fatal. It is a burden we must carry and either let it weigh us down, or somehow get over the realisation that whatever we do is not going to be significant and focus on the things that give us momentary joy - whatever that may be.

Joy means little without the opposite, so we open our eyes to the complexity of the world around us and see things as if they are seen for the first time - and value them as if we will never see them again. This is the challenge.

 

[Puffy]

I don't think one sacrifices open-mindedness and the ability to think, deconstruct, question while maintaining focus, that focus rather becomes the nexus or focal point of connections around which a lot of your thinking revolves. People who have focus are still able to engage in critical thinking and are able to see "outside the focus", they just have an internal-compass ("strong narrative") as to what is the most engaging direction for themselves.

As you said, if you have a focus you have a much greater likelihood of mastering the fields that focus involves, but the trade-off is that you are limited to a particular direction -- there are many things you won't master. It will become the anchor-point around which a lot of your thinking pivots due to the time dedicated to it. That's simply the nature of having limited time as a resource, and seems unavoidable (you have to spend time doing "something," and that involves not doing other things.)

Personally, I think the key is to a) identify a focus you are naturally passionate about, b) identify a focus or direction that gives you the greatest kind of freedom you desire possible:

I have a friend for whom virtual reality represents limitless potentiality and exploration, she can commit to programming and enjoy great freedom in relation to all the kinds of connections she can make in relation to that field. I have another friend for whom ecology likewise represents limitless potentiality and exploration. For both these people, I have no doubt they are in good fields for themselves, and thus have some sense of "narrative". But they are both also "Ne-heavy" and prone to the kind of behaviours you see in yourself.

Mastery generally takes 10,000-20,000 hours. A person can always change focus a few times in life in alignment with the evolution of passions. The key is simply to identify a course that gives you the greatest kind of freedom you desire.

 

[Inquisitor]

Any fool can write up a goal in their diary. I am talking about committing to a goal as large as life itself – and to wake up every day filled with passion to pursue the goal.

What worked for me is reincarnation. I believe I will be born again and again until I've learned/experienced everything I'm meant to. I also believe in karma, the law of action = reaction, as well as dharma (one's life purpose, ie what you were born to do). I was born into this body in this particular time and place and circumstances for a reason. But ultimately, I was responsible for my incarnation b/c of my accumulated karma. I chose this body even if that doesn't seem intellectually possible.

I know everything I do in this life has repercussions that I will carry with me into future lives. Seen in this light, everything matters. It's the opposite of what you're going through where nothing matters. I've solved my existential dilemma in this way.

But if you don't want to buy the whole bit about reincarnation, then you can turn psychology into a religion of sorts by recognizing that right now, as an INTP, you're locked into identifying strongly with one view of the world. The challenge, as described by Jung and Von Franz is to migrate to a more middle of the road path, living between introversion and extroversion, N and S, T and F...

If neither or those appeal, then that's all I've got...

 

[MosMaiorum]

Our antlers are too big. To be human is to realise the absurdity of our existence. It can be tormenting and interesting, but one can never unsee what one has seen. The view from the mountain top is both enlightening and fatal. It is a burden we must carry and either let it weigh us down, or somehow get over the realisation that whatever we do is not going to be significant and focus on the things that give us momentary joy - whatever that may be.

Glad to see another Zapffe fan.

 

[JimJambones]

While having a narrative is important, knowing whether or not the narrative is justified or not is even more important. A justified narrative is justified on justified beliefs, which requires a well reasoned epistemological perspective. This is the philosophical life and it does require investigation, and investigation is time, metaphorically speaking. Ruling out unjustified beliefs helps save time and is a great step toward building a justified narrative, which is worth far more than just having a narrative.

It is possible to have the same level of success as those that have a narrative that leads to the success as success is defined, but to do so one would have to be content with the possible incompleteness of the narrative and the uninvestigative life. Of course it is possible that those who seem sure of their narrative have already investigated the possibilities and have found what they think to be a good narrative, so they were once living rather unnarrated lives. They may just be confident that they have found one that is true, or works good enough.

I think it important to have an open mind, but I think there is such a thing as being too open-minded. When searching for truth(which at times seems to lack a single definition), a reasonable open mind will explore ideas that are realistic and plausible and will spend much less time exploring ideas that have very little justification in reality.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'll be honest, I didn't understand what that whole narrative talk was about in the OP. Then, I understood what was meant in JJ's post. I have to say that I have pretty much no narrative or driving force in my life and its a huge reason why I am so unproductive.