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.
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.
I need a thousand more accounts just to upvote this
Don’t be afraid to enter the water knowing that you are not going to swim forever.
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.
Plenty of people get married and don’t believe in an afterlife.
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.
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.
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.
A core Buddhist concept is impermanence, the idea of constant change in our world, and letting go of fixed ideas and outcomes.
This.
I would rather have things to end and turn into good memories, rather than having it turn to shit.
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.
On Wikipedia, an article for a deceased person reads, “[The deceased] was,” while an article for a TV show that has ended reads, “The Office is”
Feels kinda related in some way
That seems to me more just a linguistic quirk of how English works.
I mean that does make sense.
The office is still a show that exists and is watchable and all that. It’s not gone. It’s more like it went into retirement.
Devil’s advocate: would you use the present tense for the original Batman, or the original Star Trek?
If you want media where you might actually use past tense, consider lost media (like old episodes of Doctor Who), live streams (especially where the person stopped streaming), long-term ongoing series that keep up to date with current events (vlogs, blogs, maybe reality TV?)
Take it into the realm of literature, you wouldn’t say The Greats Gatsby was a book (unless you were saying it was a book before it was a movie or something like that), because it continues to be a book even when out of print.
Yes, I would. Nothing wrong with expecting someone might watch them.
Such a good way to put it. And I have focused on something similar for myself. Literally everything is temporary.
I tend to be a planner, a saver, the person who never uses consumable items in games, and the person who will avoid using an item they like so that it will last longer.
It’s helped me allow myself to enjoy today more, and spend more of my time doing things I want to be doing.
The best definition of success I heard was from Earl Nightingale -
Success is the progressive realization of a worthwhile goal.
Doing something because you want to do it–and it betters yourself, your family, or your community–makes you successful.
Seems to me a logical extension from our capitalist (line must go up) and Christian (stay in line or go to hell) cultural shit pile of a country.
It’s the essence of ego. Religion and society develop more and more into the direction of full ego expression. One person owning everything means that they can demand whatever comes to their mind. The ego thinks of itself as eternal.
Nah that’s wrong, this is pervasive in every culture and throughout history. Every generation complains about the next because they don’t do the same things the same way as the previous one. Entire countries did this, a kingdom that was less prosperous or lost territory was failing and in decline.
I think the root cause is an innate human fear of change and loss.
This reminds me of Sand Mandala
Once complete, the sand mandala’s ritualistic dismantling is accompanied by ceremonies and viewing to symbolize Buddhist doctrinal belief in the transitory nature of material life.
