Philosophical claptrap

[sauergeek]

Depending on who you ask, people are here for at least one of two commonly cited reasons. The religious will point at their particular religious traditions and beliefs, and say that people are here to worship whatever deity or deities they happen to favor. The scientific will point at the biological imperative, and say that people are here to make more people.

But for many -- myself included -- this is unsatisfying. Both systems imply that all people are fungible. Humans as a species don't much care if it's me making more humans, so long as sufficiently more humans get made to continue the species. And the deity (or deities) doesn't much care which people are worshiping -- if you worship, you're good, and if you don't, you're bad. There's no individuality in either system.

I've often wondered what I am here for. Neither religion nor biology can answer the question at the individual level. I have neither any idea what the answer to that question is, nor how to go about finding it out. I've felt for most of my life that I'm waiting to find out whatever it is I'm supposed to be doing here, so I can go about doing it. But just waiting for it to fall on my head is frustrating, and often feels pointless.

I've often heard about people getting a calling to do something or another. While that is a great thing for them, I've not had it happen myself, much as I'd like it to.

Does anyone here have any insight about divining an individual purpose? Or is the whole idea of searching for a purpose yet another exercise in pointless wankery, suitable only for late-night undergraduate bull sessions and mid-life crises?

Comments

[siderea]

[quotation continued]

I struggled with this myself, but not until I had listened to hundreds of others did the pattern make itself shockingly clear. What am I good at? is the wrong starting point. People who attempt to deduce an answer usually end up mistaking intensity for passion. To the heart, they are vastly different. Intensity comes across as a pale busyness, while passion is meaningful and fulfilling. A simple test: Is your choice something that will stimulate you for a year or something that you can be passionate about for 10 years?

This test is tougher than it seems on paper. In the past decade, the work world has become a battleground for the struggle between the boring and the stimulating. The emphasis on intensity has seeped into our value system. We still cling to the idea that work should not only be challenging and meaningful -- but also invigorating and entertaining. But really, work should be like life: sometimes fun, sometimes moving, often frustrating, and defined by meaningful events. Those who have found their place don't talk about how exciting and challenging and stimulating their work is. Their language invokes a different troika: meaningful, significant, fulfilling. And they rarely ever talk about work without weaving in their personal history.

I have a rather lot more to say on the topic; I'll try to get back to this tomorrow.