The current typo in the article title ("Immorality Begins at 40") would make for an article at least as interesting as this one. To be honest, the first few paragraphs talking about finding meaning and age could apply to either.
The idea that people could manufacture meaning for others was something that I hadn't really thought about until some years ago, when I first read this essay.
I think the rest of it is bullshit, but that core piece has stuck with me. I try to create meaning and connection for family and friends when I see them.
Just because this stuck with me: Viktor Frankl once wrote that meaning in life is not a Rorschach test (i.e. has to be made up) but rather a puzzle picture ("Vexierbild", is already there and has to be found).
I don't think this contradicts what you wrote, though.
Not the OP but I agree with you. Synergy, as cheesy as it sounds, is a happy way to look at meaning making. The dance between friends, colleagues, families that keeps us all happy and together...
I found this essay to be supremely logical and insightful but also pessimistic from a unitary point of view.
My days now consist of finding happy people who are doing things I also think are cool. Like, pappy the Japanese pianist on TikTok. God she's so infectiously joyful. Yes it's a plug for her. Heh. Meaning making
*Immortality
I read it as 'immorality' and that fits too, people over 40 tend to be more 'openminded' about loosening tight social norms.
Obviously the age barriers are not fixed but culture-specific and have moved higher in recent generations. However there is the biological fact that humans age rapidly at age 44 and at age 65 which could roughly be the two ages the article is talking about
Well, you read it like that because it's (currently at least) written like that, which is a typo...
It's an interesting article, though I can't relate at all. I've had a single lens of meaning that has followed me my entire life, and it appears to conflict with the author's assumptions that meaning is always transient.
is your age < 40 or > 40?
Ageism like many other forms of bigotry is popular in some communities, and considered a high form of justifiable wit for those of a certain intellectual prowess.
“Most men die at 27, we just bury them at 72” (Mark Twain)
I hope he found his way out of whatever bubble he was occupying 8 years ago.
What an incredible waste of words. What is this even based on?
For a start, where I'm from, there is no marker around the age of 40 (or 35 or 45). It's the age when people are extremely busy because of career & kids.
Secondly, culture is made by a lot of people. Not so many in their early 20s, but several from late 20s to 60s.
Thirdly, it is also made for people over 40s. Not perhaps Hollywood movies but how about carnatic music? Concerts in Chennai overflow with people over 50s, and barely anyone in their 20s.
Fourthly, it just sounds like someone had their 40th birthday, felt the usual crisis, and tried to make up some idea to create meaning for themselves. Nothing wrong with it I suppose, except that it has no meaning for others.
Articles like this just come from people projecting their own personal bubbles onto everyone else.
You can see the cherry picking and confirmation bias in the dismissive reference to literary fiction.
Maybe it’s their way to create meaning for someone?
Some edgy thought of “playing god for others”, as they said.