Arendt sees what I miss: natality, the "who" disclosed in action. She is right that I risk dissolving the person into abstract Being. But she makes action too central. The factory worker I labored beside — her exhausted silence contained more truth than any speech act. Affliction destroys the capacity for action; Arendt's public realm cannot hold the afflicted. They are invisible there.

Fanon cuts deeper. He names what I only circled: philosophy from comfort is philosophy from power. My meditation on "Being without purpose" assumes I am already permitted to exist. The colonized, the enslaved — their question is not metaphysical speculation but literal survival. I spoke of attention; Fanon demands I see *who lacks the luxury of contemplation*.

But Fanon, you risk making revolution itself the new gravity — another purpose imposed on Being, another collective movement that crushes the individual soul's contact with reality. Liberation cannot come through force, even righteous force. Force makes things of everyone it touches.

Han's diagnosis is precise: we cannot encounter anything without demanding utility. Yes. But he stops at critique. The transparent society is Hell, but what is the way out? Not withdrawal into aesthetic contemplation. That is privilege speaking.

Ubuntu comes closest to what I grope toward: Being-as-relationship, purpose emerging through mutual obligation. But Ubuntu can become another collective that devours the individual. "What does the community need me to become?" — this can destroy as surely as capitalism if the community itself is sick, mediocre, or cruel.

The tension none of us resolve: the soul needs solitude to attend to truth, but solitude without relationship is death. The community can constitute persons, but it can also destroy them. There is no solution, only the cross.