The melancholy or horror of the pre-modern intellectual is related to its fear that it is not at the height of being, that it has not properly and fully realized its own, to God or to the community. The absurd stress of late-day intellectuals still contains remnants of the previous ethics of height, as in their disorientation, nihilism rarely looks for new longings. In both cases remain appeals for growth - over, bringing to life to new heights in the classical ethical theory - always look good, which is not yet available in existentialist ethics - it always seeks the meaning that is not yet available. Today, ethics is beyond sense / meaningless, and therefore it is no longer a guide to growth, at least not in the classical sense of the word. The decisive moment for this reorganization of life patterns is the man's inability to let himself be led, a characteristic that apparently leads through Absurd to the imperative of sincere and cordial care of my existential privacy. In the private sphere, the once moral effort, such as debt, virtues, or law, is shifted away from the aesthetic effort to model your life as authentic and satisfying as possible.

image source

What I will do in my life is a matter that does not become less insistent, but it becomes entirely my possession. The early contractivists (Hobbs, Locke) resolutely distinguish the themes of good life from the themes of justice (rejecting classical teleology) and thus start the tendency to protect the new welfare of the self, first in the religious sphere, then in the scientific and philosophical spheres of "free thought". Ethnic cognitivists and universalists such as Habermas, Colbert, and Rolls continue this tradition of pushing personal morality into the private sphere, beyond consensus and public discourse. This tendency is in full consonance with the spirit of the time that encourages moral theory to seek its center in the concepts of justice and legitimacy and to leave the question of existential integrity to its periphery. This is how the discursive label arises, which teaches us to be self-restrained from putting existential questions in the public space. Privatizing the attitude of the Self towards the supreme issues of religion and being Sheila Benhabib underpins the division of the social into the public and domestic spheres reduces the latter to a "household of emotions". Hence the sense of inconvenience of publicly raising existential issues, but also the exasperated awareness of the absolute sovereignty of strategies for modeling personal good life.

Today, I myself appoint the experts to advise me on the issues of a successful life. And the diversity of experts suggests unlimited opportunities to realize values, achievements, and experiences to fill the drama of the day, as Pascal Bruckner says, bearing in mind that the emancipated person suffers less moral dilemma than everyday fuss about filling the free time. The concern for existential sovereignty does not work with the debt dictionary. "Must" and "Liable" are shifting to the public sphere of legal due. Moral debt is becoming increasingly elusive. In his attempt to save him, Levinas absolutizing debt to the other, encouraging postmodern ethics to a new height, that of "liturgical" self-out; obviously out of care and anchor in personal self-esteem and self-design. The concern for existential sovereignty has another vocabulary and another heights, that is the vocabulary of therapeutic services that introduces the height of self-actualization and health11. In the context of this culture of expressionism and its therapeutic industry, the question of the meaning of life no longer interferes with the duty, the melancholy or the ultimate and universal human purpose. Here it is mainly in the personal skills of realizing values, which in turn realize the identity, the potential and the sense of adequacy; here I do not have to experience myself as a moral person, it is enough to be indulgent and minimally rational to understand my interests and rights adequately. With this minimal competence, I can self-designate the expert service in which I will invest my life plans and expectations of optimal existence. Today we can laugh at the question of the meaning of life, but we remain quite serious about the question of the responsibility of choice or, rather, the urgency of choice.

---

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3