SOURCE - https://brightwanderer.tumblr.com/post/681806049845608448
Alt-text:
I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.
Like… if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.
The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.
| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success… I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.
You must log in or register to comment.
I totally disagree with your characterization. I can come up with dozens of examples of how people don’t think that the goal is “forever”. That’s not to say that you’re lying, if you feel it then no doubt your feelings are genuine, but I don’t think your feelings are a good reflection of contemporary society at large.
Happily Ever After only exists if you happen to die at the happiest moment of your life.
At the hill’s foot foot Frodo found Aragorn, standing still and silent as a tree; but in his hand was a small golden bloom of elanor, and a light was in his eyes. He was wrapped in some fair memory: and as Frodo looked at him he knew that he beheld things as they once had been in this same place. For the grim years were removed from the face of Aragorn, and he seemed clothed in white, a young lord tall and fair; and he spoke words in the Elvish tongue to one whom Frodo would not see. Arwen vanimelda, namarië! he said, and then he drew a breath, and returning out of his thought he looked at Frodo and smiled.
‘Here is the heart of Elvendom on earth,’ he said, ‘and here my heart dwells ever, unless there be a light beyond the dark roads that we still must tread, you and I. Come with me!’ And taking Frodo’s hand in his, he left the hill of Cerin Amroth and came there never again as living man.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of The Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 2, last paragraph of Chapter VI: Lothlórien. I bolded the last 8 words.
Aragorn knows to let go, while deeply, profoundly, cherishing what was. Be like Aragorn.
This feels like moving the goalposts.
Yes, it’s moving them from ‘I have to keep doing this forever or I have failed’ to ‘Wow I really enjoyed myself doing that!’ so the goal can be completed successfully.
I think you are looking into things in a non healthy way.
You are right that success and failure are not binary. Furthermore, every system, be it physical, living, or social, fails sooner or later.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to not fail for as long as possible, for if something brings joy or safety it’s continued success is important. It follows that if something that’s important to someone fails it’s healthy to morn it and to try to learn from it to not repeat the same failure.
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think this post is about giving up all the time. It’s about accepting when something doesn’t work anymore, or isn’t fun anymore.
If you started doing something for fun, but the fun is gone, continuing to do it may actually be detrimental.
Nowhere does the post say that we should just give up, merely that we shouldn’t stigmatize endings.
Agreed, the flip side is allowing something ending to be sad too. Not everything needs a positive spin.
This just reads to me like a classic step of linguistic evolution, where people can’t be bothered to caveat the normal word with a deeper meaning (eg “my business ultimately ended, but it was the right call and it was always be a great time in my life…” etc) and so think a new word is necessary, until inevitably the same thing happens, ad naseum.
This is nice ways of saying you can change perspective on things by using more appropriate words. At no point do your viewpoints clash with op. But success and failure can certainly be binary if you want. They are words and mean different things for different people, and we hope to sometimes communicate a specific point and sometimes a philosophical one. It can be used for much. Failure as a word is useful but also touchy for a lot of modern achievers, or sofa enjoyers. It can be oh so binary for some people. Like, did you vote and try to prevent the faschist uprising that will ruin your life? It’s a yes or no and one of those are very much a failure. If you don’t want to see your failures you will become like the wounded manchildren that has need to use power and assert dominance to exist. At that point there’s not much left of the reflection you wrote about. It’s an antithesis for the practice.
why do you call it “fail” when you mean “end”?
Because I mean fail and trying to frame everything as positive, or at worst, neutral is not healthy and will lead to people not acknowledging their feelings?
There are failures and there are endings. Not being able to cope with a failure is not healthy. Calling everything that ends automatically a failure is not healthy either.
you claim to challenge a paradigm but you merely inverted it. you are still operating under the illusion of good and bad. things end. other things begin. is one thing good if it leads to bad things? is it bad if it leads to good things? or are we just adding our own transient perspective to it? by passing judgment, we’re creating good and bad.
this has nothing to do with acknowledging feelings or not. feelings are things too. feelings end. feelings create other things, and those too can lead to other things that we might call good or bad. just because we feel a certain way does not mean the events that led us there are good or bad.
so those “failures” have nothing to do with being real with yourself. it’s quite the opposite: you are taking your feelings and attributing them to things in the world.you neglect to recognize them for what they are: transient sensations, that end.
About marriage: the whole concept reside in the mutual promise of a “forever after”. If that’s not your thing, totally fine. But then you wouldn’t engage in it in the first place? In that sense, the marriage would indeed have failed (to deliver on its core premise).
what you’re saying is only true for some religions that don’t allow divorce. most do. there’s no forever after promise in most cases, just living together and caring for each other.
deleted by creator
Then you shouldn’t use that phrase in the marriage vows, that’s the issue. If you don’t promise the forever, you are not failing the promise
it’s not a requirement in vows; I’d be surprised if most people did it. your perception is colored by TV and movies which generally uses Catholic traditions because it’s more suitable for visual representation.
I grew up in a Swedish pentecostal church so my experience in vows are more coloured by experience from that denomination rather than catholic tv
fair but still there’s a lot of religions and countries out there. where i live people usually just promise to take each other as spouses.
To clarify: I meant this purely at an interpersonal level, i.e. if you enter a marriage, you should at least honestly intend it to endure.
what you’re saying is only true for some religions that don’t allow divorce.
I’ve watched people who got married in high school go through divorce in their twenties and thirties and forties. It’s more than religion. You come out of the situation angry and insecure. You plunge into a dating pool that’s anxiety ridden and full of other jaded people. You carry your own insecurities with you. Often, the divorce is necessary, but it’s rarely fun.
there’s no forever after promise in most cases, just living together and caring for each other.
Feeling as though you have someone who wants to be near you and care for you, then waking up to discover that person is gone is extremely difficult.
There’s no forever. Everything ends. But the end of a relationship means assuming a great deal of emotional and financial and physical baggage. A home built for two people is radically changed when one is gone.
It isn’t something to trivialize or make light of.
Putting aside an afterlife, common wedding vows have “for better, for worse, … in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” So at least for people using those vows, they are committing to stay together until one of them dies. A divorce would mean a failure to follow through with that commitment.
I’m all for ridding our society of marriage and transitioning to civil unions instead. It’s a dumb-ass concept to promise to love someone for your entire life when both of you are bound to change a lot, sometimes becoming unrecognizable. The only reason it “worked” in the past is because the primary concern wasn’t actually love or happiness but rather performing the duties assigned to genders by patriarchy.
On a more philosophical note, did the marriage really “fail” if the person you promised to love changed so much so as to become a different person in the same body?
The “ship” of Theseus
Plenty of people get married and don’t believe in an afterlife.
I do think it betrays society’s lack of present-focused mindfulness. I’ve had a handful of friendships that I thought would go on to be quite strong and longlasting, but they fizzled out after a while. That’s not to say they were bad or failed friendships. I’m grateful for the time I experienced with them.
we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.
I really don’t agree with the premise, and would encourage others to reject that worldview if it starts creeping into how they think about things.
In the sports world, everything is always changing, and careers are very short. But what people do will be recorded forever, so those snapshots in time are part of one’s legacy after they’re done with their careers. We can look back fondly at certain athletes or coaches or specific games or plays, even if (or especially if) that was just a particular moment in time that the sport has since moved on from. Longevity is regarded as valuable, and maybe relevant to greatness in the sport, but it is by no means necessary or even expected. Michael Jordan isn’t a failed basketball player just because he wasn’t able to stay in the league, or even that his last few years in the league weren’t as legendary as his prime years. Barry Sanders isn’t a failed American football player just because he retired young, either.
Same with entertainment. Nobody really treats past stars as “failed” artists.
If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer.
That is a foreign concept to me, and I question the extent to which this happens. I don’t know anyone who treats these authors (or actors or directors or musicians) as failures, just because they’ve moved onto something else. Take, for example, young actors who just don’t continue in the career. Jack Gleeson, famous for playing Joffrey in the Game of Thrones series, is an actor who took a hiatus, might not come back to full time acting. And that’s fine, and it doesn’t take away from his amazing performance in that role.
The circumstances of how things end matter. Sometimes the ending actually does indicate failure. But ending, in itself, doesn’t change the value of that thing’s run when it was going on.
| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good.
Exactly. I would think that most people agree, and question the extent to which people feel that the culture values permanence. If anything, I’d argue that modern culture values the opposite, that we tend to want new things always changing, with new fresh faces and trends taking over for the old guard.
you raise an interesting discussion, but isn’t being remembered as a legend just another form of permanence? every example you provided is of someone viewed as a “success” in their field, someone remembered.
I would discourage you from discouraging others from examining the way our culture relates to mortality, because that’s what all of this is about: death anxiety.
I’m basically saying two things.
- Permanence isn’t required or expected, although in some instances permanence is valued, in defining success.
- Permanence itself does not require continuing effort. One can leave a permanent mark on something without active maintenance.
Taken together, success doesn’t require permanence, and permanence doesn’t require continued effort. The screenshot text is wrong to presume that our culture only values permanence, and is wrong in its implicit argument that permanence requires continued effort.
But what people do will be recorded forever, so those snapshots in time are part of one’s legacy after they’re done with their careers.
That’s just the same with extra steps. Rather, you should ask “But was it fun?”.
All I’m saying is that continuing effort is not necessary. Permanence/longevity can be achieved through other means, in situations where permanence is important. The lack of need for continuing effort is even more obvious in situations in which permanence isn’t even a desired or intended outcome.
This reminds me of The relationship Escalator
Idk, being sad about and grappling with the impermanent nature of things is kinda a fundamental part of being human.
Maybe it’s not fundamental and it’s just a phase that doesn’t last forever :P
Pity
Reminds me of the line in Willy Wonka “The suspense is terrible! I hope it’ll last.”
deleted by creator
When I was young I used to like sculpting in modeling clay. After I had made whatever it was and shown it to my friends, I’d smush it up and make something else. I had a constant stream of people trying to get me to change my medium so that stuff could be made permanent, but I didn’t like the feel and I was fine with the pieces being temporary.
There are a lot of things like that. People make ice sculptures or do performance art. People enjoy an experience, sometimes as simple as a sunset. Yes, some of those people will try to capture the moment, say with a photograph, but lots of people are okay with the ephemeral.
This is exactly why I love baking.
It’s temporary, it’s an experience, it leaves space for me to try new things without “waste” or clutter, and it feeds the people I love.
More permanent media leaves me stressed about perfectionism, and I don’t enjoy the process as much.
Reusing modeling clay is a lovely idea.
Saying “I love you” with food is a wonderful thing. My mom did that and I for sure learned that from her. I think the transient aspect of it is great too.
It’s funny, one of the people who really wanted me to find a way to make my sculptures permanent was my high school art teacher, who I stayed friends with for a long time after graduating. Who left that school the year I graduated and went on to be a pretty well known imagineer at Disney. Not looking after he started there, he hit me up and said I have to buy some sculpy, which they used at Disney a lot. Turns out it feels just like modeling clay but you can bake it in the oven and it ends up like a hard plastic. So ironically, I still have a few pieces I made from back in the day.
Dan Savage (of the sex and relationship advice podcast “Savage Lovecast”) says this frequently.
A short term relationship can also be successful. It doesn’t have to end with one of the partners dying in order to be considered good and worthwhile.
This is actually rather poignant.
By this standard, “successful” companies simply haven’t failed yet.
It’s standard that in human experience, we will fail at things. It happens, it happens often, and it will continue to happen. Failing at something is the first step. Without failure, how would we ever know how to “succeed”?
This doesn’t, and shouldn’t, imply that we are bad at a thing, or that we can’t become good at it, or that we should give up and stop trying. It also doesn’t and shouldn’t imply that we should continue to try. “Failure” is just an outcome, whether that is good or bad is entirely up to the viewer to decide.
I would argue that failure is simply a mental/social concept. Things simply happen. “Success” or “failure” is entirely dependent on those who had some interest in what specifically happened. Even if you’re trying to achieve a specific outcome, whether you do or not is entirely inconsequential. You tried to achieve an outcome by doing x, y, or z, and then a, b, and c occurred. Whether a, b, and c are the outcome that was desired or not is not a consequence that the universe cares about.
So much of this is simply social constructs.
I agree with you that failure can be viewed as something natural and even positive in many cases. But the text was more about branding anything that doesn’t last as a failure. It suggests that the fact that something has an ending doesn’t necessarily mean it was a failure, even though it is often labled as such.
Yeah, I kinda went off on a tangent there…
My brain is weird
Yeah, brains do that.
Some things do celebrate the ephemeral, so perhaps there’s a cultural need to wrangle these into joy. We beat illness, graduate from school, solve problems, and complete tasks. Adopting such language might help? They’ve finshed their dream of owning a bakery, lived their goal of being a writer, proudly escaped the clutches of their successful career etc…
A core Buddhist concept is impermanence, the idea of constant change in our world, and letting go of fixed ideas and outcomes.
I see you are holding on to that one
Impermanence of the individual, but the cyclic endures. Navigating the currents of history, learning from your elders, and handing your children a better world is part of the philosophy.
In the end, the goal is to escape the karmic cyclic by transcending it. You’re letting go of terrestrial craving in pursuit of something grander and more spiritually fulfilling. And part of the journey is in conveying the accumulated wisdom to your juniors, with the expectation that one life is not long enough to achieve this higher existence.
that’s just the world lol
I know, it’s such a basic idea right? And yet we spend so much mental energy opposing the inevitable. And, to OP’s point, punishing ourselves for not being unwavering and flawless in a wavering and flawed existence.
Yup. And god forbid you start a small business that’s successful and decide to pay your employees a good wage and set aside a fair amount of profit for yourself. That’s loser talk. You need to go public or sell the business for a giant payout at the expense of your employees, and then you have to keep making more money every year for shareholders, or else they’ll consider you a failure and jump ship
We are surrounded by capitalistic thinking. It’s hard to avoid, or even notice.
