The oughtness of existence: Living and suffering by what we ought

Abstract

Rooted in the fact–value dichotomy of the modern scientific outlook, psychology tends to render “ought” as distinguishable from and additional to “is.” The purpose of this article, however, is to disclose an “oughtness” at the center of human existence by which human beings inevitably live and suffer. In the first part, psychology’s neglect of oughtness is tracked down through significant albeit different theoretical strands. Second, through a threefold argument entailing (a) the other, (b) language, and (c) the self, it is revealed how people’s concrete lived lives as well as the very formation of a subject are incomprehensible without the oughtness of existence. Finally, the relation between suffering and oughtness is spelled out. Due to the oughtness of existence, guilt and inadequacy enter into the human life.

Et senmoderne overjeg?

“…Med moral henviser jeg til, hvad man kan kalde en »tyk« forståelse (Hitlin & Vaisey, 2013), der tematiserer »eksistensens børhed« i bred forstand, dvs. alle de måder, hvorved normative forbud og påbud gennemtraenger menneskers liv (se Meier, 2022a;Brinkmann, 2010a;Taylor, 1989;se også Shweder et al, 1997). I den opfattelse udtrykker skyldfølelse og dårlig samvittighed en oplevelse af at have fejlet i at leve op til denne »børhed« (Meier, 2022a) eller moralske orden (Lindsay-Hartz, 1984, s. 698).…”

A social ontology of grief

“…"Successful grievers"-in whatever form-were assumed to hold firmly onto an intact ego, whereas unsuccessful grievers were prone to melancholia (Freud, 1917); had insecure attachment models (Bowlby, 1969(Bowlby, /1997; were not able to climb the ladders of task, phase, or stage models (Kübler-Ross, 1970;Worden, 2009); were not able to formulate coherent narrative life stories (Davis & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001;Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006) or maneuver the oscillation between loss and future-oriented strains of the dual-process model (Stroebe & Schut, 2010); and had lost themselves along the way. If grief is viewed as a normative phenomenon (Brinkmann, 2016;Kofod & Brinkmann, 2017;Meier, 2022), sustaining a coherent sense of self has been one of its most long-standing demands. Given that one of the hallmarks of late modernity is an increased individualism and the belief in an autonomous and self-sufficient subject, it would be fair to expect that this long-standing resistance to accepting that the loss of others will alter one's being has not seen its final end.…”