When someone is obsessed or drugged to the point that you can't have a rational conversation and they're too angry or volatile to approach with any criticism, then it's not really your fault for coming at them the wrong way.

Sometimes caring about someone means showing them that what they think they want is garbage that's hurting them. That will probably hurt their feelings, and they might lash out at you for it, but the alternative is doing nothing or enabling them and watching them drown.

> obsessed

I don't know. What one person calls an obsession can easily be called a hobby by someone else.

Personally, I like my little obsessions. I like them a lot better than judgemental people in my life. If someone were to start a "rational conversation" with me where they made me feel like I had to justify my "garbage obsession", well, I wouldn't want to talk to them anymore.

I'm not saying such conversations are pleasant or make you like someone, when it's your own life or addictions or obsessions that are being criticized. But I've been on the receiving end of it and I'm willing to listen and consider someone else's perspective and whether it's true and whether I might need to look at reforming my behavior if people are telling me these things. I can deal with harshness if I believe they are the kind of person who isn't doing it to puff themselves up or make themselves feel better, but is simply giving me a cold analysis.

I feel like when your reaction is to detach from that and rely on emotional arguments to say it's emotionally impossible for you to handle the person criticizing you, that's when you've crossed a Rubicon after which nothing anyone says will change your self destructive behavior.

I'm saying this as someone whose two sisters both died from drug abuse in their 20s. Some people tried to reach them with empathy and others with criticism, but it's the point where someone says "I can't listen to this and I won't be subjected to this" that they become a victim in their own head of other people's harshness rather than being able to look objectively at their own state in a way that might let them change course.

In other words, content is more important than style. If you turn off because of style, that's an excuse to avoid thinking about the content. The people I know who survived are the ones who didn't use the style or delivery of the criticism directed at them as an excuse to avoid thinking about and self-reflecting on the content of what was being said.

I'm sorry that your sisters died from drug abuse. I feel for your loss, but please realise that substance abuse is not the same as losing yourself in an interest or hobby.

You make the assumption that you are absolutely right about a "garbage obsessed" person. That's reasonable when it comes to substance abuse, but it's unlikely to be reasonable when it comes to an obsession. If you are not willing to consider you're wrong about the obsession, you shouldn't have the conversation.

Even if you're right, a truly obsessed person is not going to listen someone who's full of their own righteousness. But chances are you're just wrong, and then the conversation is just useless.

> If you turn off because of style, that's an excuse to avoid thinking about the content.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. I like my obsessions. If someone is open and willing to understand, I am willing to explain or tell. But I do not care whether or not anyone thinks it's a garbage obsession. If that's all they're willing to talk about, I see no value in having the conversation.

I agree with everything you wrote, but also think that if you actually care about the other person getting better, you have to be pragmatic. Set and respect your own boundaries, but tough love does not work on everyone.

>I think it's a bit reductionist to say it's devoid of purpose and meaning

Probably he is old-fashioned and means the coventional old-style purpose and meaning, that old-timey thing that we'd call "actual purpose" nowadays.

Some backward people don't understand that "being isolated and doom scrolling all day" or "getting tons of destructive cosmetic surgeries" or "Amway" can also be a torally fine purpose in life.

> Some backward people don't understand that "being isolated and doom scrolling all day" or "getting tons of destructive cosmetic surgeries" or "Amway" can also be a torally fine purpose in life.

I really can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment or not, so just to be clear none of these examples are examples of purpose. How one spends their time isn't purpose, it's just a description of their day.

I think the main point is that it isn’t anyone else’s business how an individual chooses to spend their time.

Absence some other criteria for concern, “I don’t like that they do this therefore they must stop doing it” is a line of thinking that desperately needs to be eradicated from human culture.

I think the criteria for concern is clear, and it never was about if they personally like of the activity.

The concern is because they care about the person and "being isolated and doom scrolling all day" is objectively destructive and self-sabotaging.

It's not a relativistic “different strokes for different folks“ and don't judge situation.

Being nonjudgemental might make sense if someone you care about is at least happy, not miserable and throwing their life away.

Sure, though I do also think its reasonable for those who love for someone to be concerned if someone seems depressed or similar.

I didn't actually read the OP as a concern focused on what their sister does, but a concern of why she may be spending her time that way.

Regardless, my point was just that doom scrolling, as an example, isn't purpose. If we're collectively losing the what the concept of purpose even is we really are in trouble.

>I think the main point is that it isn’t anyone else’s business how an individual chooses to spend their time.

Nah, it was sarcasm

>Absence some other criteria for concern, “I don’t like that they do this therefore they must stop doing it” is a line of thinking that desperately needs to be eradicated from human culture.

There are other criteria for concern, both empathy and concern for the invididual (other people recognizingt that living that way is destructive) but also concern for the general consequences in a society where people do those things.

There is always a other criteria for concern. Basically nobody understands their own desire to police the behavior of other people as merely doing something that they don't like.

>How one spends their time isn't purpose, it's just a description of their day.

My examples were sarcastic, based on those being bad ways to spend your time.

That said, I don't agree that "none of these examples are examples of purpose". Or at least I don't think purpose has to be something big, like "do great good", "cure cancer", "get rich".

Those could very well be descriptions of someone's purpose, they would just be unhealthy purposes.

Cool, I thought you were sarcastic there but just didn't want to assume.

My point was only that purpose isn't what you do, its why you do it. I'd actually argue that curing cancer isn't a purpose either, its what someone is trying to do while the purpose could be a desire to help others or fame or fortune.

I think "purpose" can refer both to the "why" and to the "what", as long as the "what" is a major "end in itself/goal" for someone.

E.g. "he found his life's purpose in playing the guitar" - this doesn't answer "why" he plays guitar, but it's a common way of putting it, no?

Here's another example from wordreference.com: "His purpose in life is to give a home to street cats" (again, no why, but a what.

Out of context I obviously can't say for sure either way, but I'd assume in either example there's a deeper why behind both.

Maybe he found meaning in playing the guitar because it allowed him to share a message, or improve others' lives through song. I'd be really surprised if the actual purpose behind it really did come down to the actual act of playing the guitar.

I'm probably getting too nitpicky or semantic here, sorry if I am. I do think the distinction is an important one though, a lot of problems can show up if the "what" is treated as the purpose or meaning in one's life and we forget the "why" behind it.

>a lot of problems can show up if the "what" is treated as the purpose or meaning in one's life and we forget the "why" behind it.

Maybe not necessarily. I mean, as long as the person is content and it's a healthy thing for them, then does it matter if they don't have a "why" for the thing that they consider their purpose to follow? I mean, if they don't have any "why" beyond "because I like it/it makes me happy"?

Well I'm definitely getting semantic here, hopefully it is to make a good point and not just annoying.

I think the purpose behind that would be to live a happy life for oneself. How one does that would be different for everyone, but I'd see that as the why behind doing something just because you enjoy it.

Said differently, two people with the same purpose can have wildly different ways of achieving it. What's more interesting, and more helpful as things change and one has to adjust, is knowing the why and how my purpose differs from others.

For example, in the curing cancer example if your purpose behind that goal is to save lives or reduce suffering, curing cancer is just the result of balancing what you think is possible and the impact it could have. If you learn that curing cancer is more difficult, you may pivot to a different goal but for the same purpose.

It also says something of the ways in which you may accidentally go wrong. If your goal is to save lives, you may miss the mark on saving lives but almost certainly wouldn't knowingly do something that will harm people in the long wrong. If your goal is to cure cancer to get rich, you may very well accept long term damage to people if it gets you rich now and you cover your ass for later (aka most of the pharmaceutical industry).