I value much of your work, but as a participant in the discussion, I felt turned off by how this critique treated participants like sociological objects rather than individuals engaging in good faith. I found value in the post-discussion analysis, but it also felt very dismissive of differing perspectives and lacking nuance, pushing a pre-existing thesis over truly understanding other experiences & viewpoints.
As a woman, I couldn’t help but notice how the moral lens was hyper-focused on women’s lives and choices, without applying the same level of scrutiny to men’s roles or behaviors (which you might be able to speak about with more authority) or even larger systemic failures. That imbalance feels problematic & makes it hard to feel fully safe engaging in this space, which sucks because I really do find value in what you offer.
It’s not just that I disagree with your traditionalist stance--I’m uncomfortable with the tone and approach. I respect your work and believe that constructive feedback is essential for anyone leading important conversations, which is why I’m sharing my thoughts.
Also, I think it's important to point out that the “traditional ideals” you seem to idealize have often excluded or oppressed large segments of society, including women & other marginalized groups.
it's akin to what Nietchze was describing in "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him". he recognised the cultural vacuum left by this death of God and without the religious framework that gives us meaning and purpose in life, we are lost. until we can think of something new...
Love this framing. I like your writing (I read you!), but I often disagree with your conclusions as being too religiously grounded. On this point I'd hope people across a wide spectrum of points of view can agree!
In fact, this reminds me of something I read a while ago that seems apropos (I forget where or who said it). Boomer psychedelic use opened some individual minds, but mostly was just another party drug without broader value. The hypothesis is that this was because hippies taking acid were totally divorced from the kind of spiritual or social traditions where psychedelics had powered insights, growth, and wisdom. They weren't part of any coming of age, nor vision quests embedded in a societal spiritual tradition, etc. They were just... drugs that you took in an individualistic vacuum with other 20 somethings also without any wisdom or tradition.
I thanks for your clear and interesting post and I totally agree about needing the larger framework (I'm working on it!). It will be so interesting to hear your further ideas). The way I see it, we need to create something new but recognising and using the treasures of the past, which will take some good judgement on our part to recognise and value. I hope we can match the insight of those who came before us and avoid the mistakes, by applying the wonderful new knowledge we're privileged to have now wisely. Above all to avoid the traps of Archaeism and Futurism, illusions of a golden past or a golden technological future (I name no names but interesting to see the two current leading proponents of these opposing solutions temporarily in alliance - it can't work for long).
I see where you start the argument, but this is erroneous. Follower, with deep disagreement here.
Base mix-up: shallow people that are lost are very different from people who have multiple ideals and shifting beliefs and no set goal. They only look similar from a distance, in fact.
Second objection: bringing traditional single-goal views as self-evidently better. Biological creature had a goal, of course, but we are more than that, we carry conscious projection. It absolutely needs to be multi-goal, or even be nebulous. This is closer to the truth of reality than old narrow way, no doubt.
I take exception to your characterization of Stoic thought as a fad or pop psychology. Some treat it that way, but that's because they expend little effort to file it. It's not just something you read a few articles about. It's a lifelong discipline that teaches one many valuable lessons and ways to think. I've been working on myself for several years and I'm nowhere near done with my journey. It's about self-knowledge, acceptance of one's self and others, and learning to change what one can and not obsess about what can't be changed.
This is a thoughtful piece. I think it's fine to try different philosophies as you transition through life—it would be too rigid to adopt a fixed framework early on. I agree that it's hard to build a meaningful life if you only approach philosophies superficially, discarding them without truly integrating their insights into your values and identity. My own approach has been to explore different philosophies when I was younger (I'm in my mid-30s now) and gradually develop an integrated system. For me, it's become a mix of Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Buddhism, and Existentialism. Each of these philosophies has useful insights as well as blind spots, and I wouldn't want to limit myself to just one.
Episodic vs deeper telos is well put. Variety in place of depth a nice reframe. Browsing the marketplace of salves vs. committing to relational wholes. These are all sage.
I agree with other commenters that there’s a little straw manning in this piece and a little much blaming of individual’s choices and too little overt critique of economic and social ideologies that make guide and bend ‘us’ to these choices. Piketty analysis is spot on in terms of the Brahmin Left and the Merchant Right ordaining a new economic aristocracy to rob us of our depth and sell us chimeric optionality.
I’ve applied the same idea to learning but I hadnt thought about applying it so generally.
We all take in ‘educational’ content from social media. But in reality it does not get us far. We need goals and a personal curriculum to move towards that goal rather than moving randomly. We need structured learning to move forward and build.
The random tidbits of knowledge we gain from fast media are passing and only move us in circles. After a while we would then realise we are still at square 1.
Its not that hard really, the answer for almost all human beings (until very recently) has been religion of some sort. People can’t work out the puzzle (even or especially very smart people ). Give up pal, people telling you how clever you are are and you believing them is a dead end. Stop thinking do something, anything.
Loved this. For clarity, what would you describe as the inverse messaging to both “Sex and the City” and “Girls”? Or maybe not inverse, but what is a story that has the opposite of “phase” collecting and instead becoming serious, moral adult?
I yearn for human action on an even greater timescale than you discuss in this piece though.
The Dune series has been enjoyable in its perspective of time and how Leto II essentially enslaves the entire human species for thousands of years to force them to transcend the short-term(100s of years timeframe) thinking that held them back for so long.
I think your piece points out that today we have an even shorter timeframe that we mentally participate in, which is terrifying for our species.
Presenting ideal examples of human participation is why I love @ellegriffin substack. Her focus on utopian futures paints a vivid picture for us to strive for as opposed to the constant stream of dystopian content in movies and TV.
Sure there is less emphasis on the ideal individual human archetype but I think the way we socialize and organize is a core failure of our current social media addicted society.
All I believe I can do is work to build an alternative way to participate in the human experiment. Not as an escape but as an example of what is possible. As toxic as technology has become to us, it still empowers us more than ever before.
Hope you are well, Omar. I look forward to your next piece!
Omar, I’ve got a bone to pick with you.
I value much of your work, but as a participant in the discussion, I felt turned off by how this critique treated participants like sociological objects rather than individuals engaging in good faith. I found value in the post-discussion analysis, but it also felt very dismissive of differing perspectives and lacking nuance, pushing a pre-existing thesis over truly understanding other experiences & viewpoints.
As a woman, I couldn’t help but notice how the moral lens was hyper-focused on women’s lives and choices, without applying the same level of scrutiny to men’s roles or behaviors (which you might be able to speak about with more authority) or even larger systemic failures. That imbalance feels problematic & makes it hard to feel fully safe engaging in this space, which sucks because I really do find value in what you offer.
It’s not just that I disagree with your traditionalist stance--I’m uncomfortable with the tone and approach. I respect your work and believe that constructive feedback is essential for anyone leading important conversations, which is why I’m sharing my thoughts.
Also, I think it's important to point out that the “traditional ideals” you seem to idealize have often excluded or oppressed large segments of society, including women & other marginalized groups.
Sharing with respect for you & your work.
"self-help snippets, therapy-speak, pop philosophy, viral tweets that momentarily illuminate some aspect of our experience"
Fascinating. You write so well on this subject.
This stuff is everywhere. You could drown in it.
For me the only thing that really works is my Zen practice.
The practice of not thinking.
😂
this is an incredible article, thanks!
it's akin to what Nietchze was describing in "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him". he recognised the cultural vacuum left by this death of God and without the religious framework that gives us meaning and purpose in life, we are lost. until we can think of something new...
looking forward to your next piece!
Love this framing. I like your writing (I read you!), but I often disagree with your conclusions as being too religiously grounded. On this point I'd hope people across a wide spectrum of points of view can agree!
In fact, this reminds me of something I read a while ago that seems apropos (I forget where or who said it). Boomer psychedelic use opened some individual minds, but mostly was just another party drug without broader value. The hypothesis is that this was because hippies taking acid were totally divorced from the kind of spiritual or social traditions where psychedelics had powered insights, growth, and wisdom. They weren't part of any coming of age, nor vision quests embedded in a societal spiritual tradition, etc. They were just... drugs that you took in an individualistic vacuum with other 20 somethings also without any wisdom or tradition.
What do you mean about his conclusions being too religiously grounded? Can you expound on your point of disagreement?
I enjoyed your story of the boomer psychedelic use.
I thanks for your clear and interesting post and I totally agree about needing the larger framework (I'm working on it!). It will be so interesting to hear your further ideas). The way I see it, we need to create something new but recognising and using the treasures of the past, which will take some good judgement on our part to recognise and value. I hope we can match the insight of those who came before us and avoid the mistakes, by applying the wonderful new knowledge we're privileged to have now wisely. Above all to avoid the traps of Archaeism and Futurism, illusions of a golden past or a golden technological future (I name no names but interesting to see the two current leading proponents of these opposing solutions temporarily in alliance - it can't work for long).
I see where you start the argument, but this is erroneous. Follower, with deep disagreement here.
Base mix-up: shallow people that are lost are very different from people who have multiple ideals and shifting beliefs and no set goal. They only look similar from a distance, in fact.
Second objection: bringing traditional single-goal views as self-evidently better. Biological creature had a goal, of course, but we are more than that, we carry conscious projection. It absolutely needs to be multi-goal, or even be nebulous. This is closer to the truth of reality than old narrow way, no doubt.
https://open.substack.com/pub/octopusyarn/p/i-contain-multitudes-self-as-multiplicity
This essay is fantastic in describing this idea.
I take exception to your characterization of Stoic thought as a fad or pop psychology. Some treat it that way, but that's because they expend little effort to file it. It's not just something you read a few articles about. It's a lifelong discipline that teaches one many valuable lessons and ways to think. I've been working on myself for several years and I'm nowhere near done with my journey. It's about self-knowledge, acceptance of one's self and others, and learning to change what one can and not obsess about what can't be changed.
This is a thoughtful piece. I think it's fine to try different philosophies as you transition through life—it would be too rigid to adopt a fixed framework early on. I agree that it's hard to build a meaningful life if you only approach philosophies superficially, discarding them without truly integrating their insights into your values and identity. My own approach has been to explore different philosophies when I was younger (I'm in my mid-30s now) and gradually develop an integrated system. For me, it's become a mix of Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Buddhism, and Existentialism. Each of these philosophies has useful insights as well as blind spots, and I wouldn't want to limit myself to just one.
Episodic vs deeper telos is well put. Variety in place of depth a nice reframe. Browsing the marketplace of salves vs. committing to relational wholes. These are all sage.
I agree with other commenters that there’s a little straw manning in this piece and a little much blaming of individual’s choices and too little overt critique of economic and social ideologies that make guide and bend ‘us’ to these choices. Piketty analysis is spot on in terms of the Brahmin Left and the Merchant Right ordaining a new economic aristocracy to rob us of our depth and sell us chimeric optionality.
I’ve been looking for the word “episodic” to help describe how I feel. Thank you!
I’ve applied the same idea to learning but I hadnt thought about applying it so generally.
We all take in ‘educational’ content from social media. But in reality it does not get us far. We need goals and a personal curriculum to move towards that goal rather than moving randomly. We need structured learning to move forward and build.
The random tidbits of knowledge we gain from fast media are passing and only move us in circles. After a while we would then realise we are still at square 1.
Its not that hard really, the answer for almost all human beings (until very recently) has been religion of some sort. People can’t work out the puzzle (even or especially very smart people ). Give up pal, people telling you how clever you are are and you believing them is a dead end. Stop thinking do something, anything.
Loved this. For clarity, what would you describe as the inverse messaging to both “Sex and the City” and “Girls”? Or maybe not inverse, but what is a story that has the opposite of “phase” collecting and instead becoming serious, moral adult?
Great point of departure. I look forward to reading future pieces.
Amen
Another great piece, thank you Omar.
I yearn for human action on an even greater timescale than you discuss in this piece though.
The Dune series has been enjoyable in its perspective of time and how Leto II essentially enslaves the entire human species for thousands of years to force them to transcend the short-term(100s of years timeframe) thinking that held them back for so long.
I think your piece points out that today we have an even shorter timeframe that we mentally participate in, which is terrifying for our species.
Presenting ideal examples of human participation is why I love @ellegriffin substack. Her focus on utopian futures paints a vivid picture for us to strive for as opposed to the constant stream of dystopian content in movies and TV.
Sure there is less emphasis on the ideal individual human archetype but I think the way we socialize and organize is a core failure of our current social media addicted society.
All I believe I can do is work to build an alternative way to participate in the human experiment. Not as an escape but as an example of what is possible. As toxic as technology has become to us, it still empowers us more than ever before.
Hope you are well, Omar. I look forward to your next piece!