It is an irony how hard people will work for money, myself included, but then how many will pay no attention to the soul on top of it. This is a very Epictetian point.
Fuck you money as a concept always sounded nice to have, but it’s still pretty lofty for many and embedded in „hustle culture“ in many ways, which goes directly against many things I appreciate and want to implement in life, but a fuck you soul sounds more like it. No matter what life throws at me, I am ready and I know I can get through it!
Sam, this connects perfectly with "On the Madness of Comparing Ourselves to Others". It's like a natural continuation: a lack of imagination keeps us from preparing for things we can't even envision and our need for an enemy to define ourselves... it all ties together so well.
"an ice age is now an education system designed to murder the human capacity for critical thinking". This one may be the worst of these "new enemies". Having the ability to think criticality likely gives you the capability to overcome the others
It is everything. Our school system, the most expensive in the world, is a sin beyond words. I do not think we have yet begun to pay for it in downstream effects. That itself might be the best fight we can take on. Thank you, Tom. Maybe we should bring some Homer, Epictetus, and Dostoyevsky as part of the curriculum.
Absolutely timely. He smiled without a care in the world his teeth were mangled because he had a higher purpose. We still have some good men here, Barry.
First, thank you for the shoutout. I'm humbled by your support.
Second, I love the title because losing everything is the beginning of ascension. It is the kernel of understanding what this life is about. When you have nothing left to give or be taken, one choice remains: give up or sally forth. Not just in a physical sense either. Because if you're giving up everything, like the Algonquin captive, your choice to sally forth is forever locked in the memories of your tormentors, your loved ones, and the witnesses who are silently struck by your strength, determination, grit, and self-command. What other meaning is there to life than to LIVE it? Live it with purpose. Live it as if the energy you leave behind reverberates throughout history.
Lastly, keep this up. Keep writing. Keep stoking that fire inside you. Keep providing tinder for others to ignite. Well done, Sam.
We've inverted this slightly with SERE and the movie the Great Escape comes to mind. Sometimes, there is the same virtue in outwitting your captor as their is in staring into their face.
“Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul.”
This essay stayed with me long enough that I ended up writing a reflection that follows the question from a different angle.
Not as a counter-argument, but as an attempt to think through what might happen if structuring pressure doesn’t disappear… only changes location. I’m curious how you see that possibility.
Does internalisation weaken coherence, or transform the way it forms?
Before I answer, I am curious to know more. Can you define what it means for “structuring pressure” to change location? This sounds like a fascinating angle to explore.
When I say structuring pressure changes location, I mean that constraint does not disappear when external enforcement weakens. It relocates into the interior architecture of the person. What was once imposed from outside as consequence, prohibition, or resistance becomes internalised as anticipation, self-regulation, and identity maintenance. The structure no longer confronts us as an external boundary but operates as an internal organising principle. So coherence is not weakened by the loss of visible pressure. It is reconfigured. The force that once shaped behaviour through external cost begins shaping perception, meaning, and self-continuity from within.
The question then is not whether pressure exists, but where it resides and how consciously it is carried.
If I understand the thread correctly, I believe this is the track I myself am pursuing. It is now incumbent on the individual to stoke their own structure. We can see too clearly what happens when we do not: depression, anxiety, loneliness, victimization. But those who do not wait for external threats, enemies, tyrants, orders—these are those who figure out how to live optimally and make their own "enemies". It is a concept I tried to flesh out in several other essays and is a core theme in my book... I love thinking about this and seeing it everywhere.
But I sometimes wonder about the tension inside that shift. When structure becomes self-generated, it gives agency… but it also places the full burden of meaning-making on the individual. Not everyone builds wisely. Some construct scaffolding, others construct cages. Creating one’s own “enemies” can strengthen orientation; friction clarifies form. But it can also become simulation, a way of manufacturing intensity when reality no longer compels it. So perhaps the deeper question is not only whether we must stoke our own structure, but how to distinguish between structure that sharpens life… and structure that quietly replaces it.
That’s why this idea keeps unfolding. It never quite settles.
I love it. If you have never read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" I cannot recommend it more highly. He goes deep into this idea. He focuses less on the conclusion / path forward, but it is essentially finding meaningful work. That's it. Not everyone can or should become a buddha. But all of us can benefit by finding meaningful work to throw ourselves into. The trick is ensuring it is chosen for the right reasons and not escaped into.
I haven’t read Hoffer yet but that framing resonates immediately.
Meaningful work as something we throw ourselves into… versus something we retreat into. From the outside the intensity can look the same, but the direction is completely different. And I think what makes it difficult is that the shift can be almost invisible from within. What begins as refuge can slowly feel like purpose... or purpose can quietly become refuge when life feels harder to face directly.
So perhaps the real task is not only choosing meaningful work, but remaining able to notice when our relationship to it changes.
Thank you for the recommendation!! I’ll look for the book.
I wonder if the real danger isn’t that we’ve lost the enemy, but that we’ve domesticated the idea of consequence. When nothing costs us anything, meaning thins out. Your piece feels like a refusal of that thinning.
"an ice age is now an education system designed to murder the human capacity for critical thinking"
It does not take a leap of imagination to see how this is leading to an enemy-less world where, as you put it, there are no losers. It sounds nice at first, but this path, in total, leads to a meaningless, nihilistic existence where relativity rules.
In reading this piece, I was reminded of the gauntlet lines practiced by certain tribes and the outcomes that sometimes led to prisoners being adopted to replace the slain. This is an interesting twist I'm still meditating on; fierce revenge that, through ritual, turns to extreme forgiveness.
Love it. This is why I am on a Dostoevsky kick at the moment. No-one diagnosed and described nihilism better than Dostoevsky. Thanks for these thoughts, Jesse.
Wonderful peice. I like the contrast of what was deadly vs what it could be and is today. I do like to still find or feel those elements. Not to test them. Dont stand in the hail storm or cross the desert without water. But I do like to see and feel how nature hasn't changed in the sense that it doesn't care how modern of a man I am. It would still drown me, eat me, starve me simply because Im weak or ill prepared. I guess one should be just as guarded against those things that you compare to as well. A fight for the freedom in mind is in full swing. As you have said my friend. I will stay in this fight and it will be a good fight indeed.
Let's go, David, this is the path. It is a damn good fight, especially with the luxury of not having to worry too much about suffering the fate of our Algonkins.
There might have been one more pragmatic reason for not wanting to escape - if you returned, you'd also invite your captors to come looking for you in your village, thus putting your family and kin in danger. Back when I was a professional athlete, we used to say, "Second place, first loser." So, I am not entirely sure that the challenge was or is about "just how beautifully and savagely I can suffer." Losing mostly means not having something you want these days. The whole country (US) is divided into two (Red and Blue), and each sees the other side as the enemy, but no one is interested in suffering themselves, just making their enemies suffer. Each side is mainly interested in getting what they want. The same goes for business competition, divorcing spouses, feuding family members, etc. So, losing might hurt people's pride and identity, but few are interested in showing how well they can suffer. Instead, they are interested in getting back at their enemies, sometimes at any cost. The process might be a personal growth opportunity for some, but I wonder how much of that is just trying to digest the hurt pride and perceived unfairness.
Second place is first loser is one of my favorite expressions. I like where you were taking this. I think the two ideas in your comment may be linked rather than conflicting. Many people who feel compelled to take a political side, think that they are showing how beautifully they can suffer when they rebel against the other side. The problem is they have no idea what beautiful suffering actually means and they just look childish and repulsive. Thanks for jumping in, Valentina.
You really think so? It's a very generous interpretation of losing, IMO. But you are probably right that they don't know what beautiful suffering actually means. Thanks for responding.
I imagine that at times, without a hunt, a storm, or being captured, I have 'internal' foes; demons within me or more Jung-like, my shadow self. The parts of ourselves we all must confront with ferocious courage if we are to grow. This does not contradict the Alaimo argument, but perhaps riffs on it. Facing adversity with ferocious or even tranquil courage is what we seem to have been built for and eons of legend, myth, tradition and history uphold this. The thing I sometimes struggle with is that 'enemies' are also conjured. We get all riled about this or that asshole and set aside the curiosity which is a supreme power to wield. 'Why is this person acting like this?' 'Do I need to take it personally or reframe it as something to be experienced with as much tranquility as I can muster?' What then? Lots of dig in here, Sam. Thank you.
I'm here for this riff... these are the kinds of conversations that start to get to the heart of the matter. It is a war of abstraction—I think the solution is the introspect and bring it all back down to reality. It is a hell of a war.
“The war against losing—Our world is built on a few axioms. One is “Losing is unfair,” which is an attempt to mold competitive animals into an equitable and utopian vision, never mind the sports, war, gambling, and entrepreneurship which continues regardless. Another is “No one is allowed to lose.”
If you haven’t already read it Sam, you would love Kurt Vonnegut’s story “Harrison Bergeron” which is a wickedly satiric portrait of a society/government that makes the fatal error of confusing equality of opportunity (a good thing) with equality of outcome (not so good!).
Cool! I’ll watch it. The placeholder scene on Youtube is the ballet dancers with the weights on their legs which was indelibly burned into my brain as the symbol of misguided equality of outcomes when I read it many moons ago!
“Fuck you soul” — hell yeah, Sam.
It is an irony how hard people will work for money, myself included, but then how many will pay no attention to the soul on top of it. This is a very Epictetian point.
My favorite line as well
Fuck you money as a concept always sounded nice to have, but it’s still pretty lofty for many and embedded in „hustle culture“ in many ways, which goes directly against many things I appreciate and want to implement in life, but a fuck you soul sounds more like it. No matter what life throws at me, I am ready and I know I can get through it!
This is it entirely, Kai. What a conviction to be a guide to us everyday. And what a test to constantly remember it and live by it.
Just preordered Book, thank you
You’re welcome, enjoy.
Sam, this connects perfectly with "On the Madness of Comparing Ourselves to Others". It's like a natural continuation: a lack of imagination keeps us from preparing for things we can't even envision and our need for an enemy to define ourselves... it all ties together so well.
Rock on Uri. It’s a deep winding thread that never ceases to amaze and open the mind, which given your own writing you know full well.
"an ice age is now an education system designed to murder the human capacity for critical thinking". This one may be the worst of these "new enemies". Having the ability to think criticality likely gives you the capability to overcome the others
It is everything. Our school system, the most expensive in the world, is a sin beyond words. I do not think we have yet begun to pay for it in downstream effects. That itself might be the best fight we can take on. Thank you, Tom. Maybe we should bring some Homer, Epictetus, and Dostoyevsky as part of the curriculum.
Just like Jack Hughes scoring the winning goal for USA hockey gold medal with his teeth on ice expressing pure joy!
Absolutely timely. He smiled without a care in the world his teeth were mangled because he had a higher purpose. We still have some good men here, Barry.
Thanks to John Daily , I just read this again. It gets better with every reading. The Thoreau quote is awesome.
Hell yes.
First, thank you for the shoutout. I'm humbled by your support.
Second, I love the title because losing everything is the beginning of ascension. It is the kernel of understanding what this life is about. When you have nothing left to give or be taken, one choice remains: give up or sally forth. Not just in a physical sense either. Because if you're giving up everything, like the Algonquin captive, your choice to sally forth is forever locked in the memories of your tormentors, your loved ones, and the witnesses who are silently struck by your strength, determination, grit, and self-command. What other meaning is there to life than to LIVE it? Live it with purpose. Live it as if the energy you leave behind reverberates throughout history.
Lastly, keep this up. Keep writing. Keep stoking that fire inside you. Keep providing tinder for others to ignite. Well done, Sam.
Thank you Cory. Godspeed with the book and the mission.
We've inverted this slightly with SERE and the movie the Great Escape comes to mind. Sometimes, there is the same virtue in outwitting your captor as their is in staring into their face.
I love it.
“Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul.”
I just reread the Apology two weeks ago. It gets better every time. No-one has ever given a bigger middle finger to human ignorance.
This essay stayed with me long enough that I ended up writing a reflection that follows the question from a different angle.
Not as a counter-argument, but as an attempt to think through what might happen if structuring pressure doesn’t disappear… only changes location. I’m curious how you see that possibility.
Does internalisation weaken coherence, or transform the way it forms?
Before I answer, I am curious to know more. Can you define what it means for “structuring pressure” to change location? This sounds like a fascinating angle to explore.
When I say structuring pressure changes location, I mean that constraint does not disappear when external enforcement weakens. It relocates into the interior architecture of the person. What was once imposed from outside as consequence, prohibition, or resistance becomes internalised as anticipation, self-regulation, and identity maintenance. The structure no longer confronts us as an external boundary but operates as an internal organising principle. So coherence is not weakened by the loss of visible pressure. It is reconfigured. The force that once shaped behaviour through external cost begins shaping perception, meaning, and self-continuity from within.
The question then is not whether pressure exists, but where it resides and how consciously it is carried.
If I understand the thread correctly, I believe this is the track I myself am pursuing. It is now incumbent on the individual to stoke their own structure. We can see too clearly what happens when we do not: depression, anxiety, loneliness, victimization. But those who do not wait for external threats, enemies, tyrants, orders—these are those who figure out how to live optimally and make their own "enemies". It is a concept I tried to flesh out in several other essays and is a core theme in my book... I love thinking about this and seeing it everywhere.
Yes... that’s very close to what I meant.
But I sometimes wonder about the tension inside that shift. When structure becomes self-generated, it gives agency… but it also places the full burden of meaning-making on the individual. Not everyone builds wisely. Some construct scaffolding, others construct cages. Creating one’s own “enemies” can strengthen orientation; friction clarifies form. But it can also become simulation, a way of manufacturing intensity when reality no longer compels it. So perhaps the deeper question is not only whether we must stoke our own structure, but how to distinguish between structure that sharpens life… and structure that quietly replaces it.
That’s why this idea keeps unfolding. It never quite settles.
I love it. If you have never read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" I cannot recommend it more highly. He goes deep into this idea. He focuses less on the conclusion / path forward, but it is essentially finding meaningful work. That's it. Not everyone can or should become a buddha. But all of us can benefit by finding meaningful work to throw ourselves into. The trick is ensuring it is chosen for the right reasons and not escaped into.
I haven’t read Hoffer yet but that framing resonates immediately.
Meaningful work as something we throw ourselves into… versus something we retreat into. From the outside the intensity can look the same, but the direction is completely different. And I think what makes it difficult is that the shift can be almost invisible from within. What begins as refuge can slowly feel like purpose... or purpose can quietly become refuge when life feels harder to face directly.
So perhaps the real task is not only choosing meaningful work, but remaining able to notice when our relationship to it changes.
Thank you for the recommendation!! I’ll look for the book.
I wonder if the real danger isn’t that we’ve lost the enemy, but that we’ve domesticated the idea of consequence. When nothing costs us anything, meaning thins out. Your piece feels like a refusal of that thinning.
This is it entirely. If we do not feel consequence, we are ourselves inconsequential.
Yes… and perhaps that is the deeper erosion, not just that consequence fades, but that our threshold for significance shrinks with it.
When nothing resists us, nothing shapes us.
Inconsequence isn’t only a social condition… it becomes a psychological habitat.
"an ice age is now an education system designed to murder the human capacity for critical thinking"
It does not take a leap of imagination to see how this is leading to an enemy-less world where, as you put it, there are no losers. It sounds nice at first, but this path, in total, leads to a meaningless, nihilistic existence where relativity rules.
In reading this piece, I was reminded of the gauntlet lines practiced by certain tribes and the outcomes that sometimes led to prisoners being adopted to replace the slain. This is an interesting twist I'm still meditating on; fierce revenge that, through ritual, turns to extreme forgiveness.
Love it. This is why I am on a Dostoevsky kick at the moment. No-one diagnosed and described nihilism better than Dostoevsky. Thanks for these thoughts, Jesse.
Wonderful peice. I like the contrast of what was deadly vs what it could be and is today. I do like to still find or feel those elements. Not to test them. Dont stand in the hail storm or cross the desert without water. But I do like to see and feel how nature hasn't changed in the sense that it doesn't care how modern of a man I am. It would still drown me, eat me, starve me simply because Im weak or ill prepared. I guess one should be just as guarded against those things that you compare to as well. A fight for the freedom in mind is in full swing. As you have said my friend. I will stay in this fight and it will be a good fight indeed.
Let's go, David, this is the path. It is a damn good fight, especially with the luxury of not having to worry too much about suffering the fate of our Algonkins.
There might have been one more pragmatic reason for not wanting to escape - if you returned, you'd also invite your captors to come looking for you in your village, thus putting your family and kin in danger. Back when I was a professional athlete, we used to say, "Second place, first loser." So, I am not entirely sure that the challenge was or is about "just how beautifully and savagely I can suffer." Losing mostly means not having something you want these days. The whole country (US) is divided into two (Red and Blue), and each sees the other side as the enemy, but no one is interested in suffering themselves, just making their enemies suffer. Each side is mainly interested in getting what they want. The same goes for business competition, divorcing spouses, feuding family members, etc. So, losing might hurt people's pride and identity, but few are interested in showing how well they can suffer. Instead, they are interested in getting back at their enemies, sometimes at any cost. The process might be a personal growth opportunity for some, but I wonder how much of that is just trying to digest the hurt pride and perceived unfairness.
Second place is first loser is one of my favorite expressions. I like where you were taking this. I think the two ideas in your comment may be linked rather than conflicting. Many people who feel compelled to take a political side, think that they are showing how beautifully they can suffer when they rebel against the other side. The problem is they have no idea what beautiful suffering actually means and they just look childish and repulsive. Thanks for jumping in, Valentina.
You really think so? It's a very generous interpretation of losing, IMO. But you are probably right that they don't know what beautiful suffering actually means. Thanks for responding.
I imagine that at times, without a hunt, a storm, or being captured, I have 'internal' foes; demons within me or more Jung-like, my shadow self. The parts of ourselves we all must confront with ferocious courage if we are to grow. This does not contradict the Alaimo argument, but perhaps riffs on it. Facing adversity with ferocious or even tranquil courage is what we seem to have been built for and eons of legend, myth, tradition and history uphold this. The thing I sometimes struggle with is that 'enemies' are also conjured. We get all riled about this or that asshole and set aside the curiosity which is a supreme power to wield. 'Why is this person acting like this?' 'Do I need to take it personally or reframe it as something to be experienced with as much tranquility as I can muster?' What then? Lots of dig in here, Sam. Thank you.
I'm here for this riff... these are the kinds of conversations that start to get to the heart of the matter. It is a war of abstraction—I think the solution is the introspect and bring it all back down to reality. It is a hell of a war.
“The war against losing—Our world is built on a few axioms. One is “Losing is unfair,” which is an attempt to mold competitive animals into an equitable and utopian vision, never mind the sports, war, gambling, and entrepreneurship which continues regardless. Another is “No one is allowed to lose.”
If you haven’t already read it Sam, you would love Kurt Vonnegut’s story “Harrison Bergeron” which is a wickedly satiric portrait of a society/government that makes the fatal error of confusing equality of opportunity (a good thing) with equality of outcome (not so good!).
It is epic! There is a short video of it that I have watched multiple times... incredibly well made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgOuZzjI8o
Cool! I’ll watch it. The placeholder scene on Youtube is the ballet dancers with the weights on their legs which was indelibly burned into my brain as the symbol of misguided equality of outcomes when I read it many moons ago!
I think you're going to love this.