GENIUS FORUMS

Link to Essay

What do people here think of this piece? I'm particularly interested in responses from those sympathetic to "QRS" views and/or other unconventional perspectives - I've already had lots of predictable "mainstream" responses elsewhere.

Incidentally, if you want an illustrated version, use this link:

Essay With Images

It describes the unhealthy mentality of most workplaces. I believe that it is possible to have a healthy work environment if the employees are all doing what they like to do and are good at doing (some people like to file, some like to work with people, some like to work with their hands, but if you get someone who likes to file and make them the boss rather than someone who likes to work with people, you get the authority figure described in the essay, and nobody enjoys their work).

Feeling productive and appreciated is healthy. Feeling overworked and under-rewarded is unhealthy.

from the essay:
The most common answer, that "people need to earn a living," is obviously tautologous. It is simply an undisguised value judgment which does not even attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn a living in a world of increasing material abundance.

Without continued work, the abundance quickly goes into decay.

Arguments in favor of work's value usually boil down to the question of obligation. We are to work because "the world does not owe us a living." But why doesn't it? After all, we did not choose to be born.

Didn't we? I don't remember choosing to become corporial, but neither do I remember not choosing. How do we know we didn't choose to be born, and simply forgot that we chose this?

These activities constitute a great deal of our individual contribution to the world, and yet, they carry little weight in the public eye if we aren't willing to participate economically. In capitalism, "the economy" always comes first.

That is fine if the individual wants nothing in return that requires money. Meanwhile, economics is a good indicator of if we are doing anything that is valuable enough to society to trade money for. I may do a number of things that people appreciate, but if these things are not appreciated enough that people are willing to contribute to my survival in exchange that i keep doing them, then that tells me something about the true value of my actions.

Hi Elizabeth,

It describes the unhealthy mentality of most workplaces. I believe that it is possible to have a healthy work environment if the employees are all doing what they like to do and are good at doing (some people like to file, some like to work with people, some like to work with their hands, but if you get someone who likes to file and make them the boss rather than someone who likes to work with people, you get the authority figure described in the essay, and nobody enjoys their work).

Which essay did you read? The one I wrote doesn't have much to do with any of those things - or at least, I didn't intend it to.

Didn't we [choose to be born]? I don't remember choosing to become corporial, but neither do I remember not choosing. How do we know we didn't choose to be born, and simply forgot that we chose this?

Well, we could have hatched from interdimensional goose eggs as well, but I don't see what relevance such questions have. As you seem to agree, as far as we know we did not choose to be born, and that's the important thing in the context of the point my essay is trying to make.

That is fine if the individual wants nothing in return that requires money. Meanwhile, economics is a good indicator of if we are doing anything that is valuable enough to society to trade money for. I may do a number of things that people appreciate, but if these things are not appreciated enough that people are willing to contribute to my survival in exchange that i keep doing them, then that tells me something about the true value of my actions.

I disagree. Nietzsche received almost nothing for several of his works, resorting to self-publishing at his own expense in at least one case. Is it reasonable to suppose that Nietzsche should have thrown in the towel and gotten himself a job shovelling manure instead? If he had, wouldn't society have lost a great deal, even though it was not willing to pay anything for what Fred was offering at the time?

Thanks for your response. :)

Unidian wrote:I disagree. Nietzsche received almost nothing for several of his works, resorting to self-publishing at his own expense in at least one case. Is it reasonable to suppose that Nietzsche should have thrown in the towel and gotten himself a job shovelling manure instead? If he had, wouldn't society have lost a great deal, even though it was not willing to pay anything for what Fred was offering at the time?

"Fritz" (rather than "Fred") was a professor of classical philosophy. Many professors publish during the time they are professors; in fact universities tend to encourage that.

Unidian wrote: as far as we know we did not choose to be born

equally as far as we know, we could have chosen to be born. If a guy gets so drunk that he does not remember getting married, is he still married? Yes. He can get a divorce, but as long as he is married, he is held responsible for his wife (and vice versa). Equally, we can die, but until we do so we are held responsible for being alive.

Quotes from the essay in question:

this essay will attempt to argue that in the contemporary culture of capitalism, the master/slave dialectic remains discernible.

And it does, for the most part, but in a very pedestrian way, and sheesh, it's nothing we didn't already know.

Then it gets creative with some theories purporting to support the idea that maybe people don't need to work "for a living." Here the essay strays into territory it doesn't know, and mucks about flailingly, hoping helplessly to appear valid.

The most common answer, that "people need to earn a living," is obviously tautologous. It is simply an undisguised value judgment which does not even attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn a living in a world of increasing material abundance.

Well, the reason we live in "a world of increasing material abundance", if that is actually true, is that people are working for a living to make resources available. Is that enough of an "attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn a living"?

But why should people need to earn a living?

In the most basic terms, in order to be able to eat. And we know there are always those who cannot work, but cannot be allowed to starve. So, another reason those who can work should work, is to provide for those who cannot.

I'm equating earning a living with work. I know there are various shadings that make the two terms not synonymous (stay at home moms, philosopher geniuses who need time to think, etc). I leave it to others to sort out the semantics and special cases.

Arguments in favor of work's value usually boil down to the question of obligation. We are to work because "the world does not owe us a living." But why doesn't it? After all, we did not choose to be born.

This is quite cartoonish. For one, as Isabelle has already pointed out, who says? How do we know this. How can anyone base an argument on this? It's an unsupported blanket statement like the ones the author mocks regarding those who simply say "one must work."

To say that we have any obligation in a transaction we did not choose smacks of coercion and even enslavement, but those who point out the fact that no one chooses to be born are customarily dismissed as "childish," "unrealistic," etc. And yet, if I were to give you a candy bar which you never asked for and wait until after you had eaten part of it to inform you that I expected payment, how would you think of me?

Even if we didn't ask to be here, we are here, and as long as we are, it doesn't do any good to cry about conditions not being fair. Okay, God is an indian-giver. That doesn't obligate the Universe to lay golden apples on our table each day. Or necessarily our fellow man.

Pointing to the inherent unfairness of imposing a sense of obligation on individuals for taking part in a life they never chose is not a denial of life's value, as some may suppose. The aim is not to complain about being alive, but to question the assumption that life is something we have to "earn."

Bait and switch here. Life is not something we must earn. A living is something we must earn. Bread for the table. Because of the fact that golden apples do not miraculously appear. They don't on mine, anyway.

It is common to hear life described as a "gift," but what kind of gift comes with an obligation?

Weak argument indeed. Because some people refer to life as a gift, it is dragged in here as support for the premise?

And what if it actually were a gift? An endowment of value does imply an obligation, in my thinking.

Thank you for this food we recieve, we give thanks to the plants and animals that gave of themselves that we may continue our lives. May we do good works with this gift of life-sustaining energy.

If supporters of the capitalist "work ethic" were consistent, they would describe life as a "sale." We are sold the right to live in exchange for a lifetime of labor. There is clearly no "gift" element to be found in this

And then he mish-mashes his weak no-obligation-to-work ideas with his fairly cogent, but as I've already said, pedestrian slave-capitalist description. They are not mutually supporting.

This is not to say there aren't strong arguments possible regarding exactly what working for a living can, could, should entail in this, or a more enlightened, society. Apparently, though, this author is not the one to make them.

Carl,

Aren't you "ParadiseChild" on EZboard? If so, this level of criticism was certainly unexpected...

And it does, for the most part, but in a very pedestrian way, and sheesh, it's nothing we didn't already know.

Then it gets creative with some theories purporting to support the idea that maybe people don't need to work "for a living." Here the essay strays into territory it doesn't know, and mucks about flailingly, hoping helplessly to appear valid.

This bombast does not appear to contain an actual argument...

But wait, here's one:

Well, the reason we live in "a world of increasing material abundance", if that is actually true, is that people are working for a living to make resources available. Is that enough of an "attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn a living"?

No, it isn't. It is irrelevant to the essay's central point, which is that not everyone needs to do economic work. Certainly some do, but that's a given, and "certainly nothing we didn't already know."

In the most basic terms, in order to be able to eat. And we know there are always those who cannot work, but cannot be allowed to starve. So, another reason those who can work should work, is to provide for those who cannot.

But not those who simply have better things to do, I'm assuming. Am I correct?

I'm equating earning a living with work. I know there are various shadings that make the two terms not synonymous (stay at home moms, philosopher geniuses who need time to think, etc). I leave it to others to sort out the semantics and special cases.

Okay, fair enough.

This is quite cartoonish. For one, as Isabelle has already pointed out, who says? How do we know this. How can anyone base an argument on this? It's an unsupported blanket statement like the ones the author mocks regarding those who simply say "one must work."

"We did not choose to be born" is an "unsupported blanket statement?" Are you serious?

Even if we didn't ask to be here, we are here, and as long as we are, it doesn't do any good to cry about conditions not being fair. Okay, God is an indian-giver. That doesn't obligate the Universe to lay golden apples on our table each day. Or necessarily our fellow man.

Why doesn't it do any good to cry about conditions not being fair? Isn't that actually the basis of pretty much all social progress?

In my view, a society is obligated to ensure the general welfare of its members to the degree that it claims to be civilized and advanced. If a society wants to consider itself free of any obligation to take care of its unconventional members, that's fine, but don't call it "civilization."

Bait and switch here. Life is not something we must earn. A living is something we must earn.

False dichotomy. Life is dependent on a living.

Bread for the table. Because of the fact that golden apples do not miraculously appear. They don't on mine, anyway.

I'm trying to make it possible for exactly that to happen - if you're interested in it. If not, punch the clock. Totally your choice. That's what I want to give people - a meaningful choice.

Weak argument indeed. Because some people refer to life as a gift, it is dragged in here as support for the premise?

And what if it actually were a gift? An endowment of value does imply an obligation, in my thinking.

Thank you for this food we recieve, we give thanks to the plants and animals that gave of themselves that we may continue our lives. May we do good works with this gift of life-sustaining energy.

I always found that kind of thinking asinine. I'm aware of no animal which ever chooses to give its life as a "gift" to anyone. Animals are killed for food - they do not simply keel over dead at our convenience.

The primitive world of hunt/kill/eat is precisely what I'm trying to transcend here. Not deny, mind you - there's still going to have to be some economic "hunting and killing," so to speak. I just want people to have another option, if they want it.

And then he mish-mashes his weak no-obligation-to-work ideas with his fairly cogent, but as I've already said, pedestrian slave-capitalist description. They are not mutually supporting.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

This is not to say there aren't strong arguments possible regarding exactly what working for a living can, could, should entail in this, or a more enlightened, society. Apparently, though, this author is not the one to make them.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Although many have opposed the ideas I presented, you are the first to express the view that I presented them poorly.

Unidian wrote:Nietzsche received almost nothing for several of his works, resorting to self-publishing at his own expense in at least one case. Is it reasonable to suppose that Nietzsche should have thrown in the towel and gotten himself a job shovelling manure instead?

Thank you for prompting me to do a little more looking into Nietzsche. Actually, he did produce some literary works while he was a professor, including his first book. He retired due to health reasons (he had contracted syphallis, and although it was treated as best as could be at the time, it was still a nasty, progressive illness) and some say that the unwelcome reaction to his first book could have contributed to his retirement.

He had a valid reason for ceasing gainful employment, but he still continued his life's work, perhaps because some of us have missions in life that transcend whether or not we get paid. That does not mean that we are excused from doing what we can to contribute to our own upkeep if we can, how we can. If a person can not be gainfully employed, he has other reasons to do what he can.

Elizabeth,

He had a valid reason for ceasing gainful employment, but he still continued his life's work, perhaps because some of us have missions in life that transcend whether or not we get paid.

Indeed. For people who value wisdom, he had a mission of far more importance than simply "getting paid." For people who do not value wisdom, the latter part of his life can safely be dismissed as more or less a waste.

That does not mean that we are excused from doing what we can to contribute to our own upkeep if we can, how we can.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with that in principle, but personally, I have no time for it. To remain consistent with my own values, I have more important things to do.

If a person can not be gainfully employed, he has other reasons to do what he can.

Yes. It all depends on what he values.

Unidian wrote:Elizabeth,

He had a valid reason for ceasing gainful employment, but he still continued his life's work, perhaps because some of us have missions in life that transcend whether or not we get paid.

Indeed. For people who value wisdom, he had a mission of far more importance than simply "getting paid." For people who do not value wisdom, the latter part of his life can safely be dismissed as more or less a waste.

His valid reason was that he physically and psychologically could not keep up with the demands of a paid position at the university anymore. Nevertheless, he continued to work in the manner that he could. That is respectable.

Unidian wrote:I suppose there's nothing wrong with that in principle, but personally, I have no time for it. To remain consistent with my own values, I have more important things to do.

What is so important and time consuming that it can not be done in conjunction with supporting yourself? You did an excellent job "today" (yesterday, my time) helping clean up the board (thank you for that), and that proves that you can be a contributing member of society by performing useful tasks. Supporting one's self simply means performing a task that is useful enough to society that someone is willing to pay you for it, and doing so in an environment that actually pays you to do that.

For the record, I am on a disability payment. But assuming that I was not, and there was no fundamental impediment to doing conventionally "useful" things, I still don't think I would have time for it. The things I value are not immediately useful to the bulk of society, nor is my philosophical work. My position is definitely not "respectable" in conventional eyes, because I prefer to spend my time doing things that might potentially be of considerable value two centuries from now, but are of none (to most people) now.

Disability issues aside, I simply have no time or energy to waste on self-support. If others can take care of it, I'm happy to leave it to them. Ultimately, I feel it is to everyone's benefit for me to arrange it that way - but of course I expect the vast majority to disagree, and I understand why they do.

Progress will vindicate me, but I'll be long dead before it does.

BTW, I helped clean up Genius Forum because it is a philosophy board where substantial discussion occurs. To do that for free is better than to clean up sports forums for payment, in my view. Genius Forum has the potential to make small but significant contributions to human development. Most employment situations have no such potential, and are simply an unmitigated waste of time.

Unidian, your essay is trash.

millipodium wrote:Unidian, your essay is trash.

Unqualified criticism is counterproductive ("unqualified" meaning you didn't give the reasons for saying that his essay is trash).

Would you mind expounding on your point, please?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:Unidian, your essay is trash.

Unqualified criticism is counterproductive ("unqualified" meaning you didn't give the reasons for saying that his essay is trash).

Would you mind expounding on your point, please?

Not at all. he's just reciting age old communist trash. Communism is an irrationals system that misunderstand human nature and instead of equality only brings a totalitarian hegemon which makes slaves of the people, and destroys economic growth, and the human spirit.

millipodium wrote:he's just reciting age old communist trash. Communism is an irrationals system that misunderstand human nature and instead of equality only brings a totalitarian hegemon which makes slaves of the people, and destroys economic growth, and the human spirit.

Much better. Thank you.
:)

Nah, millipodium's first reply had more "substance."

Well, actually, zero is not more than zero, but you get the idea...

Unidian wrote:Nah, millipodium's first reply had more "substance."

Well, actually, zero is not more than zero, but you get the idea...

Good one. We'll take that as a blanket admission you have no counter argument.

What's to "counter?" You called it "trash" and repeated some unsupported attacks on communism, etc. I didn't see an argument.

Want some silly verbal abuse to match your own? Sorry, I'm fresh out right now. Check back on Monday, we're getting a new shipment.

Unidian wrote:Want some silly verbal abuse to match your own? Sorry, I'm fresh out right now. Check back on Monday, we're getting a new shipment.

LOL

Unidian/Nat,

A book you ought to read is The World Is Flat by Tom Friedman. That book is a good summary of current thinking on capitalism and it's written by a guy that people are listening to. If you're serious about constructing a compelling argument against capitalism you should start by refuting that.

Unidian wrote:What's to "counter?" You called it "trash" and repeated some unsupported attacks on communism, etc. I didn't see an argument.

Want some silly verbal abuse to match your own? Sorry, I'm fresh out right now. Check back on Monday, we're getting a new shipment.

You're out of everything.

My attacks on communism were not unsupported. Communism even at face value embodies a misunderstanding of human nature, namely that people who work harder and innovate more will continue to do so without the extra reward they receive for doing so. And in ACTUALITY communism is about an elitist cabal seizing power over all markets, which they typically abuse to their own ends. Attempts at communism have never worked differently than I have described.

You can say that "people who expect to be rewarded more for working harder" are just bad people, that they need to be reeducated. You can kill them even. But this is just extending your psychotic delusions about humanity into mass murder and censorship, creating a true hell on earth.

Can't you just be gracious for the assistance you receive from others instead of denigrating them like a jealous petulant child?

Matt Gregory wrote:Unidian/Nat,

A book you ought to read is The World Is Flat by Tom Friedman. That book is a good summary of current thinking on capitalism and it's written by a guy that people are listening to. If you're serious about constructing a compelling argument against capitalism you should start by refuting that.

Can you make a compelling argument against capitalism, Matt? Or are you just a cheerleader, full in the blouse with nothing upstairs?

millipodium wrote:

Communism even at face value embodies a misunderstanding of human nature, namely that people who work harder and innovate more will continue to do so without the extra reward they receive for doing so. And in ACTUALITY communism is about an elitist cabal seizing power over all markets, which they typically abuse to their own ends.

Bullshit. I can see you haven’t grasped -- if you have even read -- a single iota of Marxist philosophy, which is IN ACTUALITY about labour power as a commodity traded by and for your ever-beloved abusive elite as a class so sustained. Is this the kind of elitism that is acceptable to you?

I am genuinely surprised that some time ago you alluded to some knowledge of fiat money and cannot see the correlations between these two ideas.

The fact that you may not exist at rock-bottom of the Capitalist food chain is not a logical argument against it.

Cite your references and/or direct, personal observations (these supposed occurrences of “face value”) and we’ll talk some more.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:millipodium wrote:

Communism even at face value embodies a misunderstanding of human nature, namely that people who work harder and innovate more will continue to do so without the extra reward they receive for doing so. And in ACTUALITY communism is about an elitist cabal seizing power over all markets, which they typically abuse to their own ends.

Bullshit. I can see you haven’t grasped -- if you have even read -- a single iota of Marxist philosophy, which is IN ACTUALITY about labour power as a commodity traded by and for your ever-beloved abusive elite as a class so sustained. Is this the kind of elitism that is acceptable to you?

INDIVIDUALS also trade their own labor for their own benefit. The labor of different individuals is valued differently according to their skill set and expertise. Under communism, the only value is being in the "ruling party" of apparatchik planners, everyone ELSE is valued at a pittance. THIS is elitism.

I am genuinely surprised that some time ago you alluded to some knowledge of fiat money and cannot see the correlations between these two ideas.

I'm against fiat currency. But I'm still a capitalist. This is a logically supportable position. Just so you know.

The fact that you may not exist at rock-bottom of the Capitalist food chain is not a logical argument against it.

I think you need to clarify here. You're garbled.

Cite your references and/or direct, personal observations (these supposed occurrences of “face value”) and we’ll talk some more.

.

WHy don't you just tell me what I'm wrong about, and then we'll talk. You won't bog me down in your unnecessary busy work.