I find it hard to not be focused on the future or where I wish I was.
It sounds like you’re grappling with a common human experience – the pull of the future or a desired state, which can make it difficult to fully engage with the present. Several philosophers emphasize the importance of focusing on the present moment as an antidote to dwelling on the future.
Instead of merely wishing for a different future, take concrete steps in the present to move towards your goals. As Sartre emphasized, “possibilities only become actualities through action.” Focusing on actionable steps can make you feel more in control and engaged with the present, while actively shaping your future. Keeping your focus on an uncertain future, on the other hand, will result in procrastination and indecision
If your tendency to dwell on the future stems from dissatisfaction with the present, try to reframe your thoughts. Recognize that the present is the imperfect road that has brought you to where you are, and there is still potential for growth. Instead of solely focusing on what you lack or where you wish you were, take time to appreciate the opportunities and positive aspects of your current situation.
Training the mind to be present is key. Ask yourself questions about the present moment: “What is missing from this moment? What is unpleasant about today? What would I like to change?” to gently guide your mind back. And be kind to yourself: shifting your focus takes practice and patience.
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
Response 2:
Wishful Worrier,
Many ancient philosophers were concerned with eudaimonia, the Ancient Greek term for “happiness” or “living well”. They wanted to know what eudaimonia consisted in, and how to achieve it. It was considered to be the “end” or purpose of human existence—definitely a future-oriented sort of view! But what I love most about it is that eudaimonia is generally conceived as an internal state. External factors, like leisure, friendship, wealth, pain, and pleasure, still matter, but ultimately, eudaimonia is an experience determined by our own mindset and character. For Aristotle, eudaimonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. For the Stoics, it lies in a sort of internal tranquility or completeness. For the Epicureans, who are generally considered a hedonist (pleasure-based) school of thought, an essential factor was the absence of anxiety. Altogether, they create a picture of a “good life” which is in our control. What matters is not what happens to us, but how we receive and react to it. The perfectly virtuous man according to the Stoics was famously said to be happy “even on the rack”. While that seems a tad unrealistic, it does reinforce that even if our circumstances are not ideal—we were rejected for that internship, we lost that job, we failed that test, or we struggle to make ends meet—we can find happiness in the present moment, by the way we act and the way we think.
The Eudaimoptimist
It sounds like you are experiencing significant stress related to your school performance, driven by worries about comparing yourself to your peers and meeting your family’s expectations. The pressure you feel to achieve high grades and make your family proud suggests a tendency towards demanding perfection (the belief that you must perform flawlessly) and approval perfectionism (the belief that you must earn your family’s approval to feel worthy). These “musts” are often at the root of needless stress and anxiety.
Your worry about falling behind and the negative consequences of not getting high grades might involve imagining the worst-case scenarios and believing they are highly likely and unbearable. Instead of just worrying, create a realistic and actionable plan to improve your performance. Break down your goals into smaller, manageable steps. Focus on implementing these steps in the present. This proactive approach can reduce feelings of helplessness and increase your sense of control. After that, if you still do not get high enough grades, recognize that imperfection is a natural part of life and that your worth as a person is not solely dependent on your academic achievements.
Your concern about making your family proud indicates an over reliance on external validation. While it’s natural to care about your family’s feelings, basing your self-worth on their approval can lead to anxiety. Try to align your efforts with your own intrinsic motivations and values rather than solely seeking external praise. Focus on the process of learning and personal growth. Effort and a commitment to your own values can be more fulfilling than the fleeting nature of external approval.
Unsure Abel,
In Immanuel Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals, he makes an important distinction between love as a feeling, which he terms “delight in [others]” (6:449), and practical love, or benevolence. He says explicitly that while we have a duty to express practical love, or benevolence, we can never be obligated to have love as a feeling, because you cannot simply decide or choose to feel love for someone. (We cannot be obligated to do something that is impossible for us to do). This means that while we have a duty to express benevolence towards all people, we can never be required to feel love for someone.
The duty of benevolence requires that we 1) treat the humanity in others as an end rather than a means, and 2) make the ends of others our own. In other words, we ought to promote the happiness of others in our actions. Kant explicitly states however, that this duty of benevolence does not come at the cost of your own safety and well being. To help someone else at a cost to yourself that is greater than the aid you provide would be treating yourself as a means- a mere instrument to guarantee the happiness of others. (In Kant’s philosophy, treating a human as means to an end is the ultimate violation of moral law). Politeness usually does no harm to anyone. But at no point are you morally obligated to put the interests of your brother before your own safety.
The Moral Lawyer
I feel that other people do not understand me. Is it a problem with myself? Is it a problem with others?
Mysterious Mind,
The problem of ‘Other Minds’, traceable all the way back to Descartes, is a major issue in philosophy. Fundamentally, it asks whether anything really exists beyond our own mind, but it also deals with the inaccessibility of other people’s minds. No one can directly experience another’s inner self. All we have to work with is our own perception, which, as many philosophers note, is unreliable. Is that tall figure in a trench coat a person? Or is it three racoons?
Though there is no definite solution to the problem, many theories put forward involve conclusions drawn from analogy—in other words, because other people act and say things similarly to ourselves, we can draw the conclusion that they have a mind similar to our own. That person in a trench coat is devouring pizza. I eat pizza because I like it. Therefore, they probably like pizza too.
You feel that people don’t understand you. You are correct; no one understands anyone! But while first-hand understanding is impossible, we are able to strengthen the analogy that connects us by providing other people with more “data points”. To help others understand you, you can tell them about yourself, act in ways that show what your inner life is like. Eat pizza if you enjoy it, wear a trench coat when it’s cold out, talk about your fascination with the problem of other minds, and your self will be less mysterious and more accessible.
Another Mind
I worry that even if God does exist, this has no bearing on whether life is or is not meaningful.
There are two big words in your worry, “God”, and a “meaningful life” and your worry, i.e. no correlation between them, I say, is contingent upon your understanding of the conception of God and a meaningful life.
The conception of God, for many thinkers and believers, includes: God as a perfect person, God as nature, or the universe (panentheism), God in every entity, and God who is all these and yet beyond these and the list goes on. If one through reasoning or faith, accepts such a conception, one can also derive meaning of life from that conception. Especially for a devout, a conception of God is central to their meaning in life. Like, becoming godly, qualifying oneself to enter the kingdom of God, loving God and so on. If one just doesn’t want to accept the word “God” they can too derive a meaning of life in self-defining philosophies. In both cases, however, the process begins with questioning and reasoning, and then comes the specific epistemic evidence that you prioritize.
So, you are ultimately responsible to create your own meaning in life. And your beliefs about God (whether he exists, or doesn’t, or can’t be sure) and how you interpret the world will influence that meaning of life. The belief in God’s existence is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for a meaningful life. Coming back to the beginning, what is your conception of God? And what is your idea of a meaningful life?
I’m extremely bothered about a course I am taking right now. I find it difficult to understand and it’s giving me a headache. I think I’m not bright enough.
You are bothered by a course, you have a headache, and you think you are not bright enough. We should distinguish between your feelings and your judgment about yourself. The headache and the bad feeling are physical and emotional reactions. The claim "I am not bright enough" is an interpretation of those reactions.
You are engaging in a "capacity disavowal." This is a statement where you claim you lack the power to do something. Specifically, you are telling yourself you lack the mental capacity to understand the material. This judgment rests on a hidden argument: "If I were bright, I would understand this easily."
This argument is flawed. You are making an irrational demand on yourself. You are demanding that you understand the material immediately and without effort. When you fail to meet this impossible standard, you conclude you are not bright. But there are other explanations. The material might be genuinely difficult. The teaching style might not match your learning style. These factors explain your struggle without implying you are unintelligent.
Aristotle offers a solution to this distress. He argues that the highest pleasure comes from activity rather than passive states. Learning is an activity. Aristotle suggests we should find value in the process of doing something, not just in the result.
If you accept Aristotle’s view, the difficulty you feel is not a sign of failure. It is a necessary part of the activity of learning. You should focus on the effort of working through the material. If you find pleasure in that activity, you will see that the struggle is not a lack of brightness, but a sign of engagement.
Relationship is 16 months in. My partner secretly accessed my password-protected phone, and found an old ex photo and message, and accused me of continued involvement weeks later. We couldn’t agree on privacy boundaries. They have accessed my devices at least two more times without asking, misinterpreting a friend’s text as cheating and a deleted message from another friend as hiding something, again leading to confusion. Now any private communication feels suspicious. If my partner demands to see my device, am I obligated? With this repeated snooping and drama, I’m wondering if the relationship is possible?
Your partner seems driven by a need for certainty in the relationship, which unfortunately manifests as intrusive actions like accessing your phone and misinterpreting information. This demand for certainty by your partner appears to generate significant distress for both of you .
You can approach this situation in two ways. If you genuinely want to preserve the relationship, you could try addressing their underlying concerns directly, by building up “trust” and helping them feel more secure and loved. Keep in mind that building trust isn’t just about words; it requires consistent actions that demonstrate trustworthiness. This might involve increased transparency in areas that feel comfortable and reasonable to you, openly discussing your daily life and interactions (without sacrificing fundamental personal privacy), and patiently addressing their fears when they arise. While your partner’s trust issues are ultimately their own to manage, your actions and willingness to engage in building trust can significantly influence the relationship and potentially help alleviate some of their insecurity.
However, if their behavior continues even after your sincere attempts to build trust, it points towards an irrational need for control or certainty on their part. Going along with these demands simply to avoid conflict then compromises your own self-worth and autonomy. You have to have the freedom and responsibility to make a choice based on a rational assessment of the situation and your own values. This may require courage and reasonable risks that come from a constructive change: setting firm boundaries and accepting the resulting consequences when they are not met.
Before you choose any of these options, it is strongly advised you seek counselling on campus, or from places catering specifically to couples.
I’ve got a really solid group I play basketball with here at Ole Miss. We’re dedicated, we hit the Turner Center gym everyday at 6PM for a couple of hours of serious hoops after long classes. The challenge for our group is one person who regularly shows up. They’re absolutely kind and seem to have a great attitude, but their skill level is just significantly below everyone else’s. None of us want to be exclusive or make them feel bad, but honestly, it dramatically impacts the quality and competitiveness of our games. We make an effort to include them in rotations, but privately, there’s a shared frustration. I wonder why they haven’t realized the level of play here isn’t the best fit for them. So, I’m struggling with this: we can’t officially tell anyone they can’t play, but would it actually be kinder in the long run to gently suggest they might find a better fit for their skill level at other open gym times at the Turner Center or perhaps South Recreational Center?
There are two philosophical tools which might help you resolve this dilemma: Rawl’s veil of ignorance, and utilitarianism, a broad ethical theory. Philosopher John Rawls thought of justice and fairness as fundamentally social concepts, arising and operating out of our interactions with each other. Similarly here, your question is grounded in social context. You are considering not only yourself, but also your fellow basketball players and the person whose skill level is affecting your gameplay.
Behind all of Rawls’ recommendations and theories is the original position, a theoretical “minds in a void” perspective from which we begin negotiation of society’s fundamental principles. In the original position, parties are behind a veil of ignorance, which blinds them to their own situation in life. They know nothing of their social standing or personal wealth, their mental characteristics or, most relevant to our discussion, their physical characteristics like skill level. Rawls says that only people who know nothing about themselves or their situation will be able to structure a society justly.
To apply the veil of ignorance principle to your own dilemma, imagine that you had to make this choice not knowing if you were yourself, any of your fellow players, or the person causing some frustration amongst the group. What would you do then? What would be the fairest outcome? Would acting in a way that maximizes happiness for everyone be considered fair?
Utilitarianism is a type of ethical theory promoted by several philosophers, including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It argues that the consequences of an action determine the action’s morality, and we measure these consequences by how much happiness (or unhappiness) they cause. From a utilitarian perspective, we would ask which result causes the most happiness or the least unhappiness— this person continuing to play with your group, or you asking them politely if they would consider playing with a different group. A common form of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, asks you to further consider the consequences of your action being taken as a rule— what would be the result if all open gym times asked people to play with a different group when they didn’t fit the skill level? Would it still be an open gym?
It can be helpful to consider a problem from multiple angles and perspectives. But your own moral intuition should also play a role. In ethical philosophy, results that go against moral intuition often cause philosophers to revisit the theory they are using. So, whatever decision you make, check it against your moral feelings. Then you can proceed confidently, knowing you have reasoned the matter out to the fullest extent.
The Ethical Theorist
Recently, I hired someone to do a one-off job for us – helping us move some furniture into our new apartment. When it came time to pay, they asked if I could just do it in cash instead of sending it through Venmo or Cash App. I had a strong suspicion – it was almost certainly to avoid reporting the income and paying taxes on it. On one side I feel like I shouldn't be involved in something that's clearly tax evasion, even if it's on a small scale. But on the other side, I see it differently. This person is just trying to make some money doing odd jobs, probably barely scraping by, especially with how expensive everything is now. They're working hard for it. It actually kind of makes me mad thinking about how much wealth is concentrated at the top, while people like this are hustling and likely don't have any kind of safety net or benefits. If they want to keep a little extra cash out of the government's pocket, yeah, maybe it's technically illegal, but it just doesn't feel immoral to me given the bigger picture. What should I do?
Dear Moving-Day Rebel
Moral intuition makes an important (and intuitive) contribution to moral decisions. In cases such as yours, it is helpful to break down the situation into manageable parts, addressing each moral quandary in turn. I find two major tensions: the tension between your obligation to the government and your obligation to help your fellow man, and the tension between judging your action by itself and understanding it within the larger picture.
To address the first, philosophers vary dramatically in how much importance they place on obedience to the state, from Socrates, who went willingly to his wrongful death sentence, to Robert Paul Wolff, who argues that there is no obligation to follow the law whatsoever. Others take a more moderate route: the 20th century American philosopher John Rawls, for instance, says that civil disobedience is moral if it follows certain rules, and is undertaken by groups in a principled manner. Here are some questions that Rawls may have asked you: is the state’s tax policy, as you suggest, truly unjust? Or, at least, do you truly believe it to be unjust? If so, are you taking your action in response to that injustice? And, would you still stand by your action if it was publicly known? If you answered ‘yes’ to all of these questions, then, according to Rawls, paying in cash, even for the express purpose of enabling your mover to evade taxes, would be justified. But your situation does not conform perfectly with Rawls’ definition of civil disobedience. For one, your situation is neither orchestrated for the purpose of protest, nor part of a larger group of actions. Perhaps most importantly, it is not directly disobedient at all, since you have no way of knowing whether paying in cash will actually facilitate tax evasion.
With regard to the second tension, for you to pay in cash for services rendered would constitute neither tax evasion nor even accessory to tax evasion, since you have no way of knowing, and no reason to believe, that the mover wants you to pay in cash so that they can evade taxes. Paying in cash is perfectly legal, provided, of course, that the goods and services rendered are legal.
To what extent can we reliably infer the intentions of others? To what degree are we responsible for the moral choices of others? Many philosophers – Plato, Kant, Augustine – say that we ought to promote and improve the moral character of others where possible. So, denying someone the opportunity to break the law in the first place – in your case, by refusing to pay with cash, which cannot be traced – would be advisable, or even necessary, in view of that obligation. But Kant also places a great deal of emphasis on autonomy: in his view, people develop moral character by choosing between good and evil. Perhaps, then, the best way to promote someone’s moral character would then be to place them in situations in which they must make moral choices – for example, paying in cash, and giving them the opportunity to evade taxes.
There is no single way to approach, or to answer, this question. Instead, reflect on your own moral beliefs and values and how they are applicable to the situation at hand. You can use philosophical concepts like Rawls’ civil disobedience, or Kant’s duty to help others, as structures with which to organize your thoughts. What is most important to you in the end?
The Principled Thinker
You’re feeling fear? Aristotle would understand. Emotions such as fear are natural (and necessary) parts of the human condition. But he’d also say that reason, not emotion alone, should guide you. In your case, Aristotle would invoke his idea of ‘virtue as a mean’, or moderation, between extremes. Courage is a virtue, he would say, because it’s the golden mean between cowardice (too much fear) and recklessness (not enough fear). To refuse to give a presentation would be to give in to cowardice. Aristotle would push you to find the golden mean by acknowledging your fear, working through it, and courageously delivering the presentation.
Aristotle also believed that people develop their virtue through habituation – for example, that by acting courageously over and over, you become courageous. Aristotle would advise you to practice the presentation repeatedly, each practice session building your courage to speak publicly.
He would also invoke practical wisdom (phronesis), which is the ability to figure out the best thing to do in challenging situations. Right now, fear is clouding your reason. Aristotle would say that you need to use reason to challenge those fearful thoughts. Ask yourself: “What is the real chance that my fears will come true, and, supposing that they did,what would be the real consequences?” “Is my fear helping me or hurting me?” Try reframing things too: “This presentation is an opportunity for me to better my public speaking” “My classmates are nervous too; we’re all in this together.” “The professor wants me to succeed and is there to support me.”
Aristotle holds eudaimonia, which means flourishing, or living well, as the goal of all of our actions. Eudaimonia requires living a life of virtue, guided by reason. Avoiding the presentation might allow you to escape the source of your anxiety but in the long term, it would stunt your growth and worsen your fears. Acting despite your fear, however, would help you develop as a person and build resilience.
“My young friend,” Aristotle might say, “your fear may be merited, but it shouldn’t control you.” Consider these things, and don’t give in to cowardice by shirking your duty. Instead, be courageous and deliver your presentation. In doing so, not only will you complete your assignment, but you'll also take a step toward becoming a more virtuous and resilient person.