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.
Very good perspective and this is actually similar to some of the ideas of Buddhism. Everything in this life is temporary, enjoy it while it lasts.
Forever is a very long time
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 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.
Working in medicine, especially emergency medicine, I have to hold on to this kind of mindset very tightly. I see death frequently. I have had infants die in my care, and there is nothing I could have done to save them. I have had frail, miserable, elderly people in my care that have been kept alive through titanic and terrible measures, and their lives would have been so much better overall if they had been allowed to pass peacefully a few years earlier.
I saw another post yesterday about the old and infirm lying in nursing homes, staring at the ceiling, coding, then being dragged back to life by the heroic efforts of the staff and the ER…just to go back to staring at the ceiling for another year.
It seems counterintuitive as a physician (in training), particularly in emergency medicine where our whole job is to steal from the reaper, to advocate for sooner, more peaceful, more autonomous deaths. I have always been a proponent of physician-assisted suicide because I have seen too many people whose lives would have been better if they had been shorter.
saw another post yesterday about the old and infirm lying in nursing homes, staring at the ceiling, coding, then being dragged back to life by the heroic efforts of the staff and the ER…just to go back to staring at the ceiling for another year.
That explains a lot about the state of software these days.
I believe you are making a joke, but I realize that I should explain the terminology.
Someone “coding” means that their heart or breathing stopped and “calling a code” means getting all the relevant equipment and personnel to do CPR to make them not dead anymore. (CPR is quite literally necromancy and you cannot convince me otherwise.)
What feels weird is just how much of fictional media fights in favor of this concept. A hundred evil rich people wanting to live forever, not realizing the terrible consequences behind their immortality elixirs.
The immortality elixirs usually come with some amount of eternal youth or prevention of illness. If someone is healthy and able to interact with the world, that’s one thing. But someone with lung metastases or emphysema who is just lying there, drowning in their own lungs for however long…that is a life not worth living. If you could stay healthy forever, then being alive forever would just be a test of your tolerance for loss.
does anyone already have a better screenshot of the post? i wanna save one but not a jpeg thats this crispy
Depends on the situation, marriage is something I would see as for life so that absolutely is a failure. The business it would depend, if you are bankrupt that is a failure but if you choose to sell it as you are not enjoying it any more than that is more comparable to retirement.
Depends on the situation
I would say rather it depends on the mode of “failure”.
marriage is something I would see as for life so that absolutely is a failure
Nah, people can change a lot even within a couple of years, let alone their entire lives. Sometimes it just so happens that people are no longer compatible, or grow bored of each other, whatever. What I would consider a failed marriage is if it was abusive from the start or otherwise made one of the spouses unhappy, or if it ended because of some gross misconduct (cheating, domestic violence, etc). If a marriage was fun for a while and ends amicably I’d say it’s a success overall. Consider the alternative: the marriage becomes a chore, spouses start to hate each other and be miserable, but continue living together just because “marriage is for life”? That’s exactly what I call a failed marriage, not one which ended on good terms.
if you are bankrupt that is a failure
If you are bankrupt because you did some stupid/illegal shit, then yeah. If the circumstances changed to the point that the business couldn’t continue being profitable, it’s totally fine to downsize or even close the business. If you performed some services or sold some goods that made people happy for a while it is a success. Once again, consider the alternative: the business is no longer profitable but you continue running it, paying out of pocket?
The idea that two people can be compatible and never change for their entire lives is flawed in the first place.
I don’t think it’s personal failure if it entails people/places/things you cannot control. You cannot control the economy, so if it goes belly up and you file for bankruptcy it isn’t your personal failure. You cannot control your partner, so if they start being abusive, it’s not your personal failure to leave them. I think success is being able to adapt to what you can’t control, and failure is not living in reality and trying to make fetch happen.
"If you’re not growing. You’re dying "
“Something isn’s beautiful because it lasts forever.” - some robot
This translates to tv shows too to prove the point.
Tv shows that only have a few seasons that are high quality start to finish are so much better than tv shows that go on and on and on and on.
For example, the simpsons, whilst an excellent show, should have ended many seasons ago. It’s 30 odd seasons in, and it’s stale. It’s a little funnier recently, but i dont think it will ever be as big as it was.
I would consider it a failed show now but a successful show back when it was popular.
So it’s pretty much proof of the point that forever is not the definition of success.
Open ended and no another season planned? Fuck em.
Great TV show that ended well? Sign me up.
This post wasn’t sponsored by Good Place (seriously, go watch it, and watch The Selection right after).
Whats The Selection about? The Good Place was amazing and it was a shame they cancelled it. Could have done with just 1 more season.
The hell do you mean cancelled? It’s a complete show, from start to finish
Wow! I must have dreamt that. I felt sure it was cut short so it all got wrapped up quick in season 4. But googling it now is giving mixed messages, some showing michael schur intended to or decided to make the 4th season the last and others saying people were mad it was cancelled.
The good place is such a motherforking good show
Some things I think we want to aim at for our entire lives, and those things are good in and of themselves even if we don’t achieve them.
I think getting good nutrition, staying in a healthy state/sustaining or increasing our health span so we aren’t sick, exercising so we can still get out of bed every day, seeking novelty and variety in the things we do, exploring new places, learning about the world around us and ourselves, sharing all of these things meaningfully with others on a similar journey, and even defending things that mean a lot to us are some examples of this.
The idea that these experiences must last eternally was something Nietzsche talked about this in his works. He rejected Plato’s notion of the Forms as well as many religions’ concepts of a life after death - this “other world”. To Nietzsche, the good life in this world is defined by how far life can stray from its best moments, and that working through hardships and recognizing that they aren’t permanent gives us the power of freedom.
Good times must be accompanied by bad or even mediocre times. Good times lasting forever are no different than bad or mediocre times lasting forever. So yeah, writing that book or making that friendship/relationship can be a good thing. And if those things aren’t perfect, we have more reason than enough to make them better. Whether that’s work shopping the book until it gets better or starting over with fresh new ideas. Whether that’s meeting new people and developing those friendships over time, or leaving them for new friendships when other people don’t want to reciprocate. I like to think of so many people wishing for good times to last forever are lazy and just don’t want to put in the effort to change, which in my view is the whole point.
Don’t be afraid to enter the water knowing that you are not going to swim forever.
I think the fear isn’t simply exiting the pool, its drowning.
The “coffee shop” analogy breaks down when you look at the before - assuming debt, developing skills, building business relationships - and after - owing more than you earn, filling for bankruptcy, hemorrhaging staff, going back to being a wage earner rather than an owner-operator.
Same with marriage. You get older and slower and tireder, you have this shared history that doesn’t exist between anyone else, you have shared assets that can’t easily be divided up, you have a shared family.
These aren’t just whims, they’re economic events and deeply psychological ones, too. Bad ones. They are describing a material decline in your quality of life.
Yeah, the fixation on nostalgia and fandoms is bad for us as a society. No, you shouldn’t feel leashed to your hobbies… or your job or your relationships. But there’s also feelings of stability and reliability and security that comes with an enduring institution in your life. Knowing you can substitute experience for raw energy and you don’t have to relearn a trade or another person or rules to a new game from scratch has value. It pays dividends.
You don’t want to get into the water and find out you need to relearn how to swim. Especially when you’ve so far from shore.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Plenty of people get married and don’t believe in an afterlife.
You can blame George Lucas and Star Wars for this.
Do or do not there is no try.
Yoda
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.
