How does this claim, that the affirmation of one's existence and the proof of one's competence are strongly linked and can easily collapse under external circumstances, limit or support, from a skeptical standpoint, the justification for the belief that we can actively choose a 'task for having our existence affirmed' in any situation?

The Acceptance-and-Struggle schema shares much common ground with skepticism: it adopts doubt about human reason while aiming to offer hope for a situation in which modernity can be accumulated. In particular, regarding the proposition that 'one can actively choose the tasks for having one's existence affirmed,' I first think that the starting point itself, 'recognizing which of our intentional acts are for having our existence affirmed,' will fail unless it rests on a high level of acceptance. If, even for an act I judge to be the best way to resolve existential anxiety, I were to recognize that it is merely for my own self-satisfaction, a person who has not reconciled with that existential anxiety would be overwhelmed by great anxiety and fall into depression and unease, or would deny that recognition and represent a solvable problem as a problem of the whole world. Therefore, assuming the individual maintains a healthy mental state, without acceptance it is difficult to actively choose tasks for having one's existence affirmed. On the other hand, I argue that under the condition of firm acceptance, that belief becomes possible. Of course, whether 'ideal acceptance' is realistically attainable may be a point of debate, but if we view acceptance not as an idealistic dichotomy but as a spectrum, I think the subjective possibility of adopting such acts more actively can increase.