My purpose is to care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved.

It is not the job of the nation-state to give people a deep sense of purpose. That is a job for a church, temple, or other spiritual community. Governments which try to do that job tend to do badly, sometimes with monstrous results. They ought be separate.

It seems to me that historically, "the church, temple, or other spiritual community" filling that role has come with all the same downsides as the nation-state filling that role. And that's not a comment about religion – any organisation is at risk of abuse of that type because that's just how humans and organisations work.

And fully agree with "care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved", but at the same time people do need some sense of "community", "togetherness", and "we're all in it together"-ness, especially in times when things are perhaps not going so well, and I do feel that's rather been lost.

Any organization made of humans is indeed fallible and corruptible. I have heard some dark stories of this. They are not mine to tell.

Still, the people who say they are trying to uphold a responsibility are more likely to do so with care than those who are trying to do something else.

If a father needs someone to watch his 4-year-old daughter, is it wiser to drop her off at a daycare or at a post office logistics warehouse?

Every organisation attracts all sorts of people with different motivations, interests, desires, which often conflict within the organisation. I don't think there are big differences there. Daycares and post offices are narrowly defined specialist organisations, not broad wide organisations such as the church or government.

And besides, I don't think churches can be a general solution to sense of purpose or community, because it would exclude the growing majority of secular people who don't really have any religious affiliation, or are explicitly agnostic/atheist. You need ... something else for that, something more secular. I don't really know what that would be.

And let's not view the past with too much rose-coloured glasses either, as religion could be ugly business just as much as nationalism can. A famous example is Tolkien's mother, who converted from Anglicism to Catholicism and was pretty much ostracized and consigned to poverty by her family (her husband died of illness when Tolkien was about two). A Catholic priest took Tolkien in and that's how he got his education so the church/religion isn't all bad in this story, but there was a lot of needless misery, and he was "saved" by a stroke of good fortune.

I remember this type of stuff from my grandfather as well (in the Netherlands). Their house burned down during the war and after the war they relocated to the next village, which was protestant instead of catholic (or the reverse? I forgot) and were ostracized because of that. Especially in the context of post-occupation Netherlands this was double ridiculous because you'd think that these kind of small differences would fade away, but there you have it. One of the reasons they ended up moving to the city.

Let me suggest that the reason you label the church as the body responsible for the deep sense of purpose, is that the Church in all societies used to be, and in some cases still is, the Government. Europe's cathedrals were the middle-ages equivalent of work programs. (All those church tithes had to be spent on something.)

It has also done that job spectacularly badly at times.

The states of Germany and Austria take away a persons purpose because these states are very authoritative and oppressive. Governments shouldn't try to give people a purpose, but they should develop a country via laws that enable or encourage its people to find purpose. Socialism does the opposite, as it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol.

> it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol

I’m with you in your opinion that government shouldn’t try to give people purpose but I think the last part of your argument is an overreach.

You’re conflating purpose with making money. They’re not the same. Counterexample: Vincent van Gogh. His purpose was clearly art but he did not see professional success while alive. If you don’t consider Van Gogh’s purpose to be something like painting or art then I’d suggest you’re not using the word as it is commonly defined.

Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures. I have simultaneously known both an economically struggling person who refrains from drugs and alcohol and a well-to-do person who is a functional alcoholic.

Certainly alcoholism can make people lose money, relationships, etc. But it does not follow that simply abstaining from these things will make one wealthy.

Of course they're not the same, but before people can developer higher spiritual or social purposes they have to develop their material life. For most people, on top of what I just side in the previous sentence, developing their material life itself is a journey that leads them to developing and furthering their social and family life which then leads to a higher spiritual life.

Point being Vincent van Gogh who was "Born into an upper-middle-class family" according to Wiki.

> Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures.

Of course, but I was talking about those poor people who live their lives by becoming dependent on the social states without trying to further their lives. I'm not talking about poor people in general.

I was once told "Australian's don't know how to live, they just die slowly". I've spent a lot of time thinking about that.

(For context, I was born there, but left almost 20 years ago. I recently spent 18 months exploring the whole country, and sadly I now agree with the above quote)

Hundreds of millions of people around the world somehow manage to live perfectly decent lives dedicating themselves to the personal purposes of their choice and to giving their loved ones a bright future. Much of this is what you might deride as "consumerism". It's generally a good thing to aspire to, and without having to have some collectivized state-level notion of "purpose" crammed into one's life.

No thank you. For those who want such wider purpose, by all means, aspire away while leaving others alone to live their peaceful private ends, but it's absurd to think that a country "needs" it, or some crisis to be a good place to live. A country only needs stable, law-abiding, transparent government for decency. Considering how many places lack even that, it should be purpose enough in a basic sense, with a firm onus on the bureaucrats to provide it.

If anything, bullshit about purpose and so-called national projects has been used to justify centuries of horrific repression and destructiveness while a select few leaders impose thier specific idea of what's needed on those they can dictate to.

The article being discussed describes the collective sense of purpose in Bulgaria as being at its peak post-communism, when the populace was excited to be free from repression and able to try new things, start businesses etc. You’re basically agreeing with the author.

It does seem, however, that there are many concerning trends in social measures in western countries these days, particularly among things that have traditionally given people a sense of purpose on an individual level. So it may behoove us to discuss and think about why that may be, and what we can do collectively to inspire the kind of societal outlook that is likely to promote a different trend in those measures.

> Hundreds of millions of people around the world somehow manage to live perfectly decent lives dedicating themselves to the personal purposes of their choice and to giving their loved ones a bright future. Much of this is what you might deride as "consumerism". It's generally a good thing to aspire to, and without having to have some collectivized state-level notion of "purpose" crammed into one's life.

Citation? Haven't we seen a rise in despair and loneliness (and ultimately in people dying of these things), even as people's material condition got better?

>Citation? Haven't we seen a rise in despair and loneliness (and ultimately in people dying of these things), even as people's material condition got better?

Have we really? or are you citing poorly quantified media narratives of this? I'd love to see a solid analysis of human happiness today, overall, across several specific metrics, vs. the same metrics say 100 years ago. Without both, anyone who says people are generally less happy now (because random social media or formal media dramatic clickbait garbage source said so) might just as well be full of shit.

In other words, you're claiming a sort of counterfactual I argue and I'd like to see your citation for it.

I think what you’re getting at is that societies define themselves based on external threats.

Psychologically speaking on a group level it is much easier to say what we are not and define ourselves based on that than it is to develop an internal definition of ourselves.

You can see this in the history of national identities coalescing around external threats such as the American identity being sidelined for state identity until the revolution.

This is a well-studied phenomenon and contributes to the post-colonial failed states with arbitrary borders. Remove the colonial power and you’ve removed the national identity and cause massive fragmentation and dysfunction.

I’m not sure there is a solution to this in a nuclear world as it is in our biology and has served us well up until the point where we developed genocidal tools and processes which justifiable scare the developed world into relenting from defining external groups as major antagonists.

As much as a strong national identity can give great cohesion and confidence it can now also teeter the world or parts of it into apocalypse which it has basically done twice now and loomed over us a third time with the Cold War. I sense we have a new Cold War now and it has been looming for almost decade. To me this is our great filter and I am forcefully optimistic we can figure something out because the alternative is utter destruction.

A lot of people agree that life is shit in the west as well.

The problem is if you don't align with the politics of the person you're conversing with when you say that, they'll get pissed and claim you hate their country and should leave. But they'll readily turn around and also say the country is shit, just for different reasons and claim the biggest problem is people like you who are standing up for the shitty system that's in place.

Maybe not as many people feel this as you think.

I don't believe that. I don't think the number is important, nor does it correspond to my experience. If people were truly happy, they wouldn't be in constant fear and fighting each other publicly. The division is pretty clear.

And a honest talk with people who even percieve themselves as happy, also reveals their concerns and worries and feelings of discomfort.

But my point was more of this kind: why do western societies struggle so much with unhappyness and discomfort? The compulsive therapeutic approach only came with the advent of psychoanalysis and happiness guide literature at the beginning of the 20th century. Today everything has to be translated into positive psychology. For me, this is one of the greatest deceptions against yourself. Because the political enemy is evidently unbearable to the other party - so facts you can't translate into something positive exist.

Real happyness is above such contradictions. Real decadence is ignoring them. The west has become very decadent and I can't see any real happyness in decadence.