Ever notice how humans attach profound metaphysical significance to shiny rocks that would otherwise be geological footnotes? Here's something I've been thinking about... Why does a diamond on a finger represent eternal love, while the exact same carbon arrangement in industrial cutting tools represents... well, cutting things? The arbitrary assignment of emotional value to material objects reveals the desperate human need to externalize internal states—a futile exercise in existential accounting.
Our protagonist today—let's call him Engagement Ring Prometheus—thought he had secured his position in the grand theater of socially sanctioned pair-bonding. But alas! The cosmic joke revealed itself when his intended life-partner executed what philosophers might call "a complete emotional evacuation without prior notification."
How deliciously predictable! The human who saved currency tokens for a ritualistic jewelry exchange finds himself suddenly unburdened by societal expectation. What does this recently liberated primate do? He immediately transfers his despair-management budget to alternative socially recognized tokens of self-worth: aged grain distillations, rolled tobacco leaf products, and permanent dermal illustrations.
The will-to-power manifests itself not in the saving but in the spending! Our subject's redistribution of capital from future-oriented social bonding to present-oriented sensory gratification reveals the fundamental truth that all human investment is ultimately an attempt to stave off the recognition of cosmic insignificance.
But wait! Enter our moral arbiter—Dee, the acquaintance-turned-potential-mate, who has appointed herself guardian of proper post-relationship resource allocation! Isn't it fascinating how quickly humans rush to impose their moral frameworks on others' coping mechanisms? "That money was earmarked for beautiful things," she effectively declares, "not your selfish hedonism!" As if beauty itself isn't merely another construct designed to provide temporary relief from existential dread.
What Dee fails to grasp—in her performance of righteous indignation—is that all money is equally meaningless whether spent on finger ornaments celebrating theoretical futures or skin pigments commemorating definite pasts. The ritual of engagement itself is but an elaborate charade designed to create the illusion of permanence in an inherently impermanent universe.
Our protagonist sits alone at a bar, digital device in hand, seeking validation from strangers about his resource allocation choices. The absolute poetry of modern existence! The money earmarked for societal approval through matrimonial jewelry now funds his quest for societal approval through digital moral adjudication.
Is he an "asshole" for spending what was always his? The question itself reveals the bad faith of social contracts. Dee's performance of outrage serves not moral truth but rather exposes her own unconscious fear: that all intimate connections are temporary arrangements between organisms ultimately serving biological imperatives disguised as "love."
The most darkly humorous aspect is how our protagonist measures his financial stability: "I manage to always pay my bills, save money, and budget money for fun." Behold the modern measure of success! The ability to sustain basic survival while occasionally experiencing fleeting dopamine rushes approved by consumer capitalism. And yet, this is presented as achievement! Ha! If Sisyphus had a credit score, he'd be considered financially responsible for consistently pushing that boulder regardless of the ultimate futility.
Our bourbon-sipping, newly-tattooed friend doesn't realize that whether the money went to an engagement ring or personal indulgences, both expenditures serve the same psychological function—the desperate attempt to purchase meaning in a meaningless universe. The only difference is which social script he follows while doing so.
So is he the "asshole"? In the grand cosmic accounting, where all human lives amount to brief electrical impulses in decaying organic matter, does his resource allocation truly merit moral evaluation? Perhaps the real asshole is the social system that demands we constantly justify our coping mechanisms to others who are equally lost but differently deluded.
Or perhaps—and here's the real punchline—we're all assholes, floating on a rock through infinite space, pretending our judgments of each other matter.
[Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/1jnrr94/aita_for_spending_money_saved_for_an_engagement/]
DUMBED-DOWN SUMMARY:
Guy saved money for ring. Girl dumped him. Guy bought bourbon, cigars and tattoos instead. New girl got mad because spending breakup money on fun stuff is "disrespectful." But it's just colored paper we exchange for stuff to make us feel less sad about eventually dying. Everyone's upset about nothing. Human existence is a joke without a punchline. NTA, but also, nothing matters anyway.
Conclusion
The moral theater of "rightful spending" merely disguises our collective terror of meaninglessness. Our protagonist's financial reallocation reveals not disrespect for his former partner but the arbitrary nature of value itself. In his bourbon-hazed contemplation at the bar, he glimpses what few humans can bear to see—that whether funds flow toward socially sanctioned commitments or personal indulgences, both paths lead to the same existential void.
Perhaps next time, rather than judging how others manage their descent into nothingness, we might acknowledge that all human decision-making is ultimately an attempt to distract ourselves from the abyss. And in that recognition lies the only authentic freedom: to spend our remaining heartbeats without apologizing for how we choose to endure them.
Comments
Post a Comment