GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Maybe the work-at-all-costs mentality is not as dangerous a delusion as women-at-all-costs, but it certainly should not be ignored. In most cases, I would think it is simply one part of the women-at-all-costs mentality; if so, it certainly is one part of that mentality that causes harm.

Well I've already stated that working for a living is a form of spiritual weakness, but it doesn't make one spiritually weak simply by participating in it the same way participating in a relationship with women and maintaining all kinds of attachments would. It is a compromise on my part, being that I am a full time employee, but I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation. In some ways me being a full time employee is a sign of spiritual strength, being that I'm able to cope with the delusional aspects of society on a regular basis and still maintain a wise state of mind. But like I said, this all seems like were reaching too much when we try to use anything other than the actual philosophy of said philosopher as an indicator to gauge their level of wisdom. I mean come on, we already know 99.9999999% of the population doesn't give two shits about wisdom. So what's the point?

Trevor,

If a wise man has to ask questions to which the answers may dictate the way in which he lives his life to gain wisdom, then... He may become dependent on the very wisdom which puts the wise in front of the man.

Eliminating that dependency is like taking away a junk from a drug addict.

True wisdom comes from within. Mystery.

Nick,

So what's the point?

I guess I could bring up the main point of Uni's philosophy, as far as I understand it: people should stick to what they are best at.

If you are really good at thinking, you should not worry about getting money. There are people out there who can make money very successfully. So successfully, in fact, that they leave a nice little "safety net" for the thinkers to recline in while they do what they are best at: thinking.

Yeah, exactly. Incidentally, I think the same should go for artists, if their work is not commercially viable.

Is it reasonable to think that a wise man would also be a prudent man - that is, he would be wise in his ordinary daily affairs, take reasonable precautions against foreseeable circumstances, and so on?

The main problem I see with unemployment is that it does not lead to long-term freedom - it just gives free time in the short term. By being employed full time I am well on my way - another five to ten years - to being able to retire, and live on my savings. I will not be at the whim of how much the government feels like giving me - or is able to give me.

The continued existence of welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and all those programs are not givens. You are basically relying on the continued kindness of strangers. It might continue... but it might not. It's not in your hands. By gathering your own resources, you have a lot more control over your own destiny.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Certain careers seem counter-productive to thinking about philosophy; in particular, careers that require thought tax the brain. It is hard to imagine coming home from 8 hours of doing mathematical calculations and to voluntarily think about the structure of reality.

Yes I agree that the better the philosopher, the less demanding his job will be. Obviously if he is really dedicated to philosophy he will only put as much effort into work as he needs to get by. You certainly wont see him climb to the top rungs of the corporate ladder.

Forgive me for thinking this is particularly aimed at me; as far as I know I'm the only one here who actually spends 8 hours a day in an office obstensibly doing math.

Of course no one can really do math eight hours a day straight. I'd say I work two or three hours, really, most days. I don't think this is uncommon amongst office workers; four hours a day might be average. I'm not one of those that gets by on hard work. I'd rather do one thing really well than a bunch of stuff half-assed.

I feel like the amount of work I do is like exercise - it's enough to keep my brain in shape, but not enough to drain me and wear me out.

If I wanted to, I could certainly find a job that requires a lot more work (and would pay more). But I'm pretty happy with the balance I have.


Those who are most opposed to employment (Trevor and Nat, maybe Dan) seem to have this view of work as being extremely oppressive, draining, just being exploited by the Man. While there are some jobs that are like that, if you find something that suits your temperament, it can work out okay.

I think there is also something to be said for structure - having to get up at a certain time and go somewhere. It's physically healthy to have those kinds of routines.


After I got laid off from my last job, I took off from work for, I think, about a year and a half. It was really good to have a break, and it was hard to go back. That break was really good for me in a bunch of ways (especially in terms of art projects). I can see the value in that, and I'm looking forward to being retired. (On my terms.)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If you are really good at thinking, you should not worry about getting money. There are people out there who can make money very successfully. So successfully, in fact, that they leave a nice little "safety net" for the thinkers to recline in while they do what they are best at: thinking.

My argument isn't that there shouldn't be accommodations made for genuine thinkers, it's that we shouldn't assume a man's philosophy to be weak based simply on the fact that he is employed. In fact I agree that genuine thinkers should be accommodated by society, myself included. But as of right now the only thing I would be eligible for is food stamps, and food stamps don't pay bills.

All work is an abstraction for food and shelter.
Hunting, gathering, hewing, honing - this is work, and the former its ultimate purpose.
Too bad we forget the abstraction, and then accuse those who work of unconscious slavery. It is tantamount to blaming them for securing food and shelter. I don't know of living things that become passive in the face of this condition, unless that passivity is a matter of constitutional inability (babies/idiots/senility etc.). Living things will do as they must to live. period. In Unidian's (and others) case, public assistance is "doing as they must." It's there for them, after all, like wild nasturtium and river fish. Others have chosen otherwise.

Philosophically, it becomes what one does to secure this that we could argue about. Or, how much they think they materially need. But not that they do it at all. That is as anti-functional as becoming a passive living thing waiting for food to drop into its mouth.

(btw, I think vicdan's fishing spear analogy [on the other page] is spot on because it does recognize, and bypass, this abstraction.)

It is a mistake to make all work a matter of morality. You might as well ask if it is "moral" to sustain one's life at all.

No, if you're going to do this, you have to do it right. You have to get down and dirty into the details. It is what work; what kind of work; what value it has; how much "extra" we need; what we spend it on, etc. No one avoids work of some kind, for few generally avoid their own survival. It is the what and how of it, not that work happens at all. This would be a project no less towering than designing a world of new values. Or, give up, and let this capital culture juggernaut play itself all the way to the end, whilst we all stay clean in our little pockets of it.

I suspect that if there were no one around to assist Unidian, he would work: soil, spear, and thatch. If not, he would hardly deserve derision. He'd be dead.

.

Dave,

Those who are most opposed to employment (Trevor and Nat, maybe Dan) seem to have this view of work as being extremely oppressive, draining, just being exploited by the Man.

My view is a little different than Unidian's. I have problems with the currency abstraction. This necessary trade of a finite amount of time and effort for a finite amount of life points (that can be exchanged for living necessities) seems alien to my best interpretation of the cultural realities of Canada. It is possible to distribute money such that everyone has enough for eating, if not eating and shelter. In fact, this currently happens, if you are canny enough to deal with the correct paperwork, and odd-ball enough not to worry about dignity, and I agree with it.

Those who spend their days amassing luxuries so they can build giant dollhouses have more than half of their salaries siphoned off to feed this system, not to mention that the economic value of their work to others is greater than their payment. Money is not, therefore, "life points", but luxury points. People work for luxuries.

There's the death threat again. Work or die. That is the choice some people prefer that everyone be given. It goes without saying that this choice is the only one that exists in nature and the animal kingdom. But humans can and should do better. It is logically fallacious to attempt to derive a moral "oght" from a natural "is." This is know as the naturalistic fallacy. The state of nature cannot and should not dictate human morality.

We can offer people a better choice than "work or die." We have the resources and the technology to do it. All we lack is the will, because as long as we're resigned to the choice ourselves, we see no reason to prevent it from being imposed on others. But if we ever decided we wanted to do better, it would be the simplest thing in the world to do.

Unidian writes:

The state of nature cannot and should not dictate human morality.

Isn't this exactly what's been said? I'm hardly the spinner of work as a "moral" matter. Work is a matter of life/living.

Unidian also writes:

We can offer people a better choice than "work or die." We have the resources and the technology to do it.

This "doing better" - it, too, will require work. producing it; organizing it; distributing it; etc. You in? I am. Let's get to work. Because I don't know who else "we" is.

.

Unidian wrote:There's the death threat again. Work or die. That is the choice some people prefer that everyone be given.

I think a decent chunk of the population believes there should be welfare for the debilitated. Do most people think they should pay to support people who are fit to work? Of course not. Can you blame them?

It is logically fallacious to attempt to derive a moral "ought" from a natural "is." This is known as the naturalistic fallacy. The state of nature cannot and should not dictate human morality.

But Nat, people who are against supporting those who don't work, are a part of nature. The present situation, 'the what is', is the state of nature. Now here you are saying how it 'ought' to be. Little contradiction you seem to be caught in.

We can offer people a better choice than "work or die." We have the resources and the technology to do it.

We are already doing it. Yes, I agree we can do better, but I think the only improvements will stem from a proud attitude which says: "It's good to help the physically and mentally ill". That's as far as you are going to see humanity go. If we one day mature past that, then I would say we have surpassed my current definition of humanity.

All we lack is the will, because as long as we're resigned to the choice ourselves, we see no reason to prevent it from being imposed on others. But if we ever decided we wanted to do better, it would be the simplest thing in the world to do.

Many people don't mind supporting the sick and the ill. I really don't think it's that radical of a notion. I think it's realistic and understandable for you to be concerned about influencing societies to give better social assistance to those who are considered ill, but I'm not sure that that's what you are pushing for.

For instance, imagine your typical proud nine to fiver's reaction when you propose to him: "I want you to support my existence by giving me money on a bi-weekly to monthly basis. I'm not physically or mentally ill, on the contrary, my thoughts and my thinking are superior to yours. In fact, I'm ahead of my time, and my ethical and philosophical ideals render your current mentality as pretty much unsatisfactory in my book. ....um, and yeah, so about that money..."

Cory: as a member of the mentally ill class, I would be a lot more comfortable given assistance if I didn't feel like the only reason I was given this assistance was because I was deemed unfit to work. If there were morally justifiable reasons not to work other than inability, some of the self-flaggelation of those who would like to work but can't could be avoided.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory: as a member of the mentally ill class, I would be a lot more comfortable given assistance if I didn't feel like the only reason I was given this assistance was because I was deemed unfit to work. If there were morally justifiable reasons not to work other than inability, some of the self-flaggelation of those who would like to work but can't could be avoided.

Just be happy you are getting assistance at all. You are hardly mentally ill to the point that you can't work. You would make an excellent school janitor or burger flipper.

Neil: I know I'm perfectly qualified for most forms of employment, which does include jobs in sanitation and food preparation; it's too bad I can't say much about your abilities as a philosopher. Being able to justify my actions is important. That you can't relate to the necessary philosophic issue of making moral judgements says a lot about the state of your consciousness.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory: as a member of the mentally ill class, I would be a lot more comfortable given assistance if I didn't feel like the only reason I was given this assistance was because I was deemed unfit to work.

Realistically, given the disposition of humanity, what other reasons could they understand?

If there were morally justifiable reasons not to work other than inability, some of the self-flaggelation of those who would like to work but can't could be avoided.

What causes a man to flagellate himself for something he cannot control? Superficial answers are always quite specific: premature ejaculation, low IQ, small penis, too fat, too short, too skinny, too weak, too ill, etc.

The most accurate answer is quite general: EGOTISM.

It seems to me as if you are basically demanding that societies cease valuing egotism.

Well, of course that's noble. But as long as the animalistic rule the world, people, generally, are only going to want to help you - which means them looking down upon you. You have to give them an acceptable reason why you are 'the right kind of inferiority'. They must fancy themselves as compassionate helpers, and will have no interest financially supporting individuals who represent the elimination of the foundation of their values.

If you want to eliminate egotism, as I'm sure you know, there's a much better way than trying to philosophically reason with or rail against that vast bulk of tax payers whose lives are largely prioritized around Chips 'n Pop, satellite TV, contriving 'an exciting Christmas', planning a wedding, hiding porn from the wife, telling lies to impress the kids, etc.

Cory: a modern Buddha would be a CEO who realizes the suffering he is causing, and so gives up his wealth and family to live in soup kitchens. It puzzled me why those with enough wisdom to bypass the CEO phase -- and go right to the soup kitchens -- are considered inferior.

I think you have an adequate answer.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory: a modern Buddha would be a CEO who realizes the suffering he is causing, and so gives up his wealth and family to live in soup kitchens.

It puzzled me why those with enough wisdom to bypass the CEO phase -- and go right to the soup kitchens -- are considered inferior.

I think you have an adequate answer.

Because not valuing happiness and vanity appears breathtakingly insane to people, and always will appear that way as long as they value happiness and vanity and love, etc, etc.

Wisdom, more than sometimes, appears insane to me. I struggle to come to grips with it daily.

Pye wrote:All work is an abstraction for food and shelter.
Hunting, gathering, hewing, honing - this is work, and the former its ultimate purpose.

But food and shelter are abstracts too, for example when it's supposed there's always a lack of it. This would lead to the topic of abundance and its counterpart: lack. The degree of abundance and lack are caused by environment.

Art, philosophy, idle talk and perhaps decadence in its unwholesomeness are products of luxury, adundance of means - in a society, not necessarily an individual.

Indeed "living things will do as they must to live" but this is not a survival issue only. They will do all kinds of experimental and pointless things, something stupid, something brilliant, sometimes lazy, sometimes hyperactive, but always just filling an available niche.

The tightly integrated modern society makes it hard to speak of individuals when the matters of survival and responsibility are raised. The police carries the stick, the hospital the needle, the supermarket the breast and the justice and economics department the details of all the 'fairness' in distribution. In this system some people will no nothing and others work day and night. Some will choose and fight their way, others follow pressure, others refrain from both.

Every advanced society in history has this phase were many of its people disconnect from pure production and conquest and find a niche full of decadent or philosophical lifestyle, sometimes fueling and strengthening, more often draining and weakening the society. But this is an inherent weakness of what Nietzsche called late or sunset cultures. It flowers and it rots at the same time.

Don't blame just the worms, what about the sickening sweetness of roses and their tricky thorns and sucking roots? Quick! Reach for that low hanging fruit before it falls and squashes, overly ripe.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory: a modern Buddha would be a CEO who realizes the suffering he is causing, and so gives up his wealth and family to live in soup kitchens.

It puzzled me why those with enough wisdom to bypass the CEO phase -- and go right to the soup kitchens -- are considered inferior.

Because you have no power beyond what you exert. You have no ability beyond what you do. There is no "self" sitting there that is more powerful than its physical actions. Powerful people do not skip out exerting their power and become moral Christians; weak people who have perhaps have convinced themselves they are powerful do. The CEOs that go to the soup kitchen are either doing it for some other reason than what it appears to be, or they are showing their weakness.

The same thing arises in your notion of freedom. You believe freedom is standing in the hall surrounded by open doors. "I can do anything!!" But the problem is that when you go through one door you are closing others. Therefore your version of freedom is to do nothing. You are free to do anything as long as you do nothing. You are free to grow in any direction as long as you do not grow! How ironic. Freedom is power, and your romantic conception of "freedom" simply doesn't exist -- humans are not free in that way.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Because not valuing happiness and vanity appears breathtakingly insane to people, and always will appear that way as long as they value happiness and vanity and love, etc, etc.

No, valuing non-happiness and non-vanity appears breathtakingly insane to people. Having an ascetic ideal appears breathtakingly insane to people.

Cory raises some interesting and potentially valid points, from an angle I haven't seen explored before.

...and Neil... well. How long does it usually take for someone to outgrow Nietzsche? (I might as well be asking how long it takes, on average, for a fundie to outgrow Jesus; sometimes it never happens.)

I don't even feel like breaking this down. Like, I'm perfectly capable of becoming an anthropologist, but I'm not going to become one. I have the ability to do a hell of a lot of things I'm never going to do. Arguing for this position is so breathtakingly easy that I can't believe Neil holds the opposite to be true.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:...and Neil... well. How long does it usually take for someone to outgrow their first impressions of Nietzsche?

What, are you still using this comment as some type of rebuttal? How fast the majority of people "outgrow" their taster of Nietzsche who goes against their whole lifestyle is undoubtedly fast. This doesn't make him wrong.

PS -- I didn't get those ideas from Nietzsche anyways. I've gone to church for a long time and am well acquainted with the type of people who think the truly strong or powerful don't exert any strength or power. They have done a complete reversal of values and now believe they are strong and powerful when in reality they are the more impotent people you will ever meet.

Neil, no. You read like a bad Nietzsche impression.

In case you missed it:

I don't even feel like breaking this down. Like, I'm perfectly capable of becoming an anthropologist, but I'm not going to become one. I have the ability to do a hell of a lot of things I'm never going to do. Arguing for this position is so breathtakingly easy that I can't believe Neil holds the opposite to be true.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I don't even feel like breaking this down. Like, I'm perfectly capable of becoming an anthropologist, but I'm not going to become one. I have the ability to do a hell of a lot of things I'm never going to do. Arguing for this position is so breathtakingly easy that I can't believe Neil holds the opposite to be true.

You can only become, say, and anthropologist or a philosopher. Only one. What one will it be?