Australia sounds like a nice place. — Question

Bingo.

I'm not so obtuse as to not realize my harshness, but I'm also not so unkind as to deny an unparented child very (and I mean very) basic parenting. Where is dad in all this discussion about living with mom? I know, many grow up without dad. Too many.

maybe Mars is where it's all at... — Question

Where it all is, dammit....

I read "self-esteem" to be less about image and more about personal confidence and motivation here, a sort of doing, living or habit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yeah, but who's the one telling you you need all this confidence and motivation? The police officer in your head? And for the matter, what the hell is all this obsession with self-esteem/confidence?? Are people like inherently born with inferiority complexes?

The world is everything that is the case.

Andddd, I'll end that there.

Why is it eminently sensible? Because life is hard, and people who do not take responsibility for their own well-being and self-support are likely to find themselves in various unenviable positions later on in life when mother is no longer alive, and when one is getting a bit old to do entry level work. — Bitter Crank

Just because "the world" - or the place you happen to live - might be a hard place, doesn't mean you just ought to go along with its ways.

So yes of course. Your cultural environment might greatly narrow your personal choices. So you ought to bring up your kids to be practical - equipped for the way the world is. But also to be self-actualising - as the higher ambition - you don't want to just present them with the one rigid definition of success (which boils down to be like Daddy ... or at least don't repeat the way he let down his daddy.)

Question isn't, after all, a mentally deficient ward of the state. He wants to earn a PhD in philosophy. — Bitter Crank

Does he really want to? Is he really capable? I'm not seeing clear evidence of that. Which is why - putting myself in the position of a parent - I wouldn't start labelling him simplistically as a lazy, mummy's-boy, quitter who ought to be ashamed of himself.

Only a dick does that.

Is Thorongil being a dick for outlining the unpleasant realities of pursuing a PhD? — Bitter Crank

If he attacked anything, it was a questionable culture. Hanover attacked the person. A slight difference don't you think?

So it is quite useful to know in advance that something might not be as fun as its sounds. Hanover instead was simply projecting his own tired stereotypes on a person he has never met.

Your mother's reliance on you is unfortunate, an outgrowth of the blurring of child and parent roles, necessitated by the absence of your father. Your feeling of dependency is understandable given your situation, but at least understand it stifles your growth. Dispense with calling me a dick or whatever, but do think about where you are and why you're there.

obv you realize the harshness. The harshness is the role youre playing. All that stuff about missing dads may be true, idk, its the thesis of fight club, but either (1) you diagnosed the op's problem and didnt really care about fixing it or (2) you were trying to play the part of that absent dad which begs two more questions (1) is that how you parent? and (2) why are you trying to surrogate parent on a forum when you have actual kids?

Question "literally asked for it"

Thoughts welcome. — Question

and we only have what he offered about himself to go on.

All this is to say you may tell me the best way to parent when you have some inkling what it entails. — Hanover

Needless to say I have kids. They are pretty much all growed up. And you will know that the first lesson of having children is to be able to respect their differences without pampering to them.

It is thus quite a creative process. If you actually understand that yet would address someone you don't know in such Trumpish fashion, then that is a definition of dickishness I say.

Trumpish. Funny insult. Anywho, this has actually become a thread about what constitutes a dick and whether I fulfill those criteria.

I was philosophizing, which isn't a pragmatic exercise, but an academic one. Embrace him, reject him, help him, offer criticism, it hardly matters. Do you live under the illusion any of this matters?

Interesting answers. Good to get different perspectives on such an important matter.

I'm biased against narrow notions of success that are inculcated into us and unconsciously adopted. So I say you should continue doing what you're doing for the time being. Nothing at all wrong with living with your mom and working at a job you enjoy. Now if you were married and/or had children to provide for then it would be a much different story. But I'm assuming you're young and have a certain amount of freedom that I find enviable.

You don't seem like the type of person whose ambition is driven by material considerations. That's great IMO. Why not pursue independent scholarship outside of the confines of academia? @Thorongiland @The Great Whateveroffered some great information on the practical aspect of grad school. If you don't choose that path for one reason or another (good reasons given for not going that route here) that doesn't mean you can't continue to pursue your interest in philosophy on your own.

Scale back your desires, realize that your time is the most important thing you have, and think these things through for a few more years. Maybe you'll develop a more secure sense of your abilities and move forward towards a legitimate career, or what's respected as such these days. And if not, hey, that's fine too. When you get into your thirties then maybe it'll be time to lock down a decent paying job if you have any aspirations of finding a 'partner' and possibly beginning a family.

Question himself laid out his situation and asked for feedback. Good idea? Maybe not.

There are risks in laying out one's situation and then asking people what they think about it. I wouldn't call Hanover's comments an unprovoked attack. Question is asking about a 10+ year project (PhD in anything) which might, quite possibly, not pay off well. Hanover cut to the quick. "How do you think you are going to get on in life?"

I know from my own personal experience (I started college once upon a time, long ago) that the ideas we have in our heads about the future can be terribly naive and mistaken. Later on, when I was counseling college students (this back in the 1970s) many of them had no idea of what it would take to achieve what they, or their parents, thought they wanted.

The children of the privileged upper classes (say, the top 20%) generally get fairly good direction about how to succeed in life. Their parents succeeded handsomely, they have ways and means and they make sure their children benefit from their own advantages.

80% of the people don't have these advantages, and don't have the necessary specialized knowledge to tip off their children about how to get ahead and succeed (something that most parents desire for their children).

Hanover was offering his insight. Nothing more. Not a dick.

Yeah, I think the well being of others, who are real, even if theyre on a forum, does matter and i think its sad you don't. But hey, no one else would have the edge to joke about taboo sex acts. Sad!

I'm a dick too tho, and I'm sorry to hijack this thread.

I recognize desires as per the Buddhists as the source of suffering. This is a synthetic a priori truth that all sentient beings ought realize.

Living with mom isn't a bad thing and never was. Society imposed some fictitious rule on people that "man" ought move ought from "mother". I suspect this has to do with capitalism, individualism, and consumerism, along with a plethora of unrestricted wants and desires from the daughter or son spewing out.

I am not needy for anyone. I just appreciate the advice and thoughts of this community.

I do not see myself ever having a wife, although the thoughts do return and bother me on the subject. Still thinking if I can have a wife with my current lifestyle or even if I realize the dreams in the OP.

Life is about getting through it. Schopenhauer can expand on that for you. — Question

I don't think there is any problem living with your mother, but it may be for you in the long run and I believe that every person should attempt to be on their own to really get a grasp of what it is that they want in life and for themselves unless you, by some miracle, meet an amazing woman who will help you reach that goal. Why people believe it is wrong to live with their mothers is often because it confirms a lack of independence; genuine and successful relationships between people are best when two people have attained that individuality and direction in life and merely share it with one another and the risk is that you will continue this dependence when forming relationships with other women; that is, you may find yourself comfortable, yes, but unsuccessful and ultimately unhappy.

When one depends on the other, well, the dynamics becomes difficult and in the long-term you will look back having repeatedly done the same thing in different ways because you fear taking risks and challenging yourself to avoid losing comfort. Life is not about getting through it. It is about living it.

Don't listen to Andrew K and don't listen to Hanover. Listen to yourself.

Be careful - seeming lack of ambition can be the mask for the greatest of ambitions. The thing with great ambitions (unlike puny ambitions) is that they cannot be fulfilled very easily (and it's stupid to try when failure is guaranteed), so people having them, often seem to be doing nothing from the outside - not even attempting to do something. — Agustino

I am aware of that and I am confident that the OP will pursue a life of philosophy whether academically or independently, but what I got from his post was a lack of confidence in himself. Once he breaks that barrier and challenges himself by being courageous enough to take risks, his greater ambitions will come to fruition. The first risk is living on his own for a while.

Who cares? Really, who cares? Once you realise that no one cares, not even you, you can renounce whatsoever is troubling you. Really, if you never leave the walls of your house, until you die, has your life been wasted? Absolutely not - when you die, you die, that's the end, doesn't matter that you were President or you were the beggar on the corner of the street. Relax! The real secret is that only the man or woman who has completely renounced winning the world, only that man or woman can actually turn around and win it - everyone else has already lost before they've even tried. Their ambition has killed them. Only those who have conquered their ambitions can fulfil them - it's a paradox, but it is true. — Agustino

This is the most horrifying thing I have read in a very long time. Quite literally. Though I understand your point [if it is attempting to speak of transcendence], the way that you have explained it in light of referencing Osho is just all wrong. You become that very 'worm' that Kierkegaard despises, as do I.

“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”

The purpose in life is that YOU MAKE your purpose in life and yes, one will need to let go of the 'worldly' aspect with this attempt, that is, trying to build an artificial life with false ambitions, but that all boils down to finding your independence and being able to ascertain what it is you genuinely what and are as an individual. It is only possible when you reach autonomy, embrace your free-will. Then, the eternal beauty of our capacity to live, the opportunities becoming so profound, so exciting that real passion starts to form, only then will you understand life. To lock yourself in a cage because you are terrified to fly - though you have wings - and pretend to yourself that is somehow wisdom by adopting New Age gobbledegook, well, that only confirms that you have chosen a purposeless life. What does that say to your state of mind and being?

I would venture to say no-one. In this sense, it's one's own act, the habits one is compelled to do, where one drifts with their free time. Am I motivated and habitual in my painting? Or is it something I never quite get around to because I'm too busy rehashing Spinoza with John every second day?

It's not a police officer (though others might use a concept of "self-esteem" in that way, in an attempt to get you to behave in a way they prefer). If one is fighting with themsleves in this context, I would say self-esteem is absent. In the sense I'm taking about, it's about what you do every day.

Many people are distracted or imagine they are something they are not. I don't really think it a question of an inferiority complex in most cases, just they have interests which lie elsewhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with this per se, but if one is going to master a particular skill or hold a specific position, the dedication of self is important. I won't be a great painter if I just deadicate myself to posting on The Philosophy Forum.

Knowing and doing what you want sort of changes the game. With this sort of "self-esteem," the procrastination of "should I get around to it" or "maybe l'll get this done tomorrow" is tossed away.

Listen to BitterCrank and Hanover. They speak from experience. Even better, look at them. That would be the greatest lesson. You don't want to end up like an old fag spending half your time on a philosophy forum posting irrelevant things. And you don't want to become a middle-aged loser, owner of successful kids, who spends more time on philosophy forums than young lazy recluses who live with their moms - posting hideous and supposedly politically incorrect jokes.

Listen to the sirens signaling the passing of your life, Question! Shine on you crazy diamond :-O

"Matters" in the sense that what you say will doubtfully matter in terms of bringing about meaningful change, not that people don't matter. It's possible something we say in this thread will change a person's life course, but such things usually require far more effort. Our influence is limited, and that is probably a good thing.

This provides a pretty good summary, caricatures to be sure, but it makes both of our points:

https://youtu.be/n9huSs0g67c

Also... You have to be a certain age to remember why they smelled their papers.

My two cents: It's perfectly legitimate to give blunt advice to someone who starts a discussion based on their personal life. It's up to them to decide whether its helpful or not. What's not warranted is making this about those giving the advice. Posters are going to be themselves and that's they way it should be.

On the matter at hand, I agree with @The Great Whatever: Don't go into philosophy if you expect it to solve any major life problems for you. And I would think, judging by my limited knowledge of your personality, you wouldn't be self-motivated enough to do what it takes to make it in academia anyway (I know I'm not). If you want to build up your confidence, I'd suggest you try teaching English as a foreign language or something along those lines. Travel. See a bit of the world. At least put yourself outside your comfort zone at some point, or life will inevitably do it for you and probably in a much more unpleasant way than if you had planned it.

Become a porter.

Astronaut

Porters annoy me, offering to do what I can do myself just for a tip.

This is the most horrifying thing I have read in a very long time. Quite literally. Though I understand your point [if it is attempting to speak of transcendence], the way that you have explained it in light of referencing Osho is just all wrong. You become that very 'worm' that Kierkegaard despises, as do I. — TimeLine

Yes, but in order to be more than that worm, you have to accept the possibility of being that worm. Only when fear of being that worm has been overcome - only then are you free to be anything more than that worm. Until that has been overcome - you'll always be that worm. I despise worms too :) but worms aren't created by actions and outward circumstances. Worms are created by inner disposition.

As for Osho - I don't agree with Osho but the cure, in order to ultimately reach equilibrium, needs to be greater than the disease.

but that all boils down to finding your independence and being able to ascertain what it is you genuinely what and are as an individual — TimeLine

Renouncing is not equivalent to giving up on who one is - I never renounce who I am, I renounce outward expectations of anything. I don't renounce my values. I don't change my values depending on the circumstances in order to have anything. I don't renounce my ambition - I renounce the fulfilment of my ambition - there is a very large difference there.

Then, the eternal beauty of our capacity to live, the opportunities becoming so profound, so exciting that real passion starts to form, only then will you understand life. — TimeLine

This has nothing with any outward expression of anything. I could be selling groceries for the rest of my life, or working in a nursery, or living with my mother, or anything else that you'd consider cutting your wings off. It's not outward circumstances and actions that make life profound, passionate, and intense - it's the fire inside your heart. You may outwardly be nobody - indeed you may be a caged bird - your life may be completely boring and uninteresting - and yet inward you could be richer than Bill Gates. It's your inward life - not your outer life, that is under the question. That's what brings intensity to all the moments, regardless of how they outwardly appear.

What does that say to your state of mind and being? — TimeLine

Outward things don't say anything about my state of mind and being, except superficially.

Witty, all worked up and frustrated from the constant blue balls of intellectual discourse (he was gay for philosophy, you see), after failing to find some suitable fascists to obliterate, got a job as a porter.

Not only did he like to tell students that they ought to go out and find real jobs, he apparently asked Russell if his dissertation was good, or if he should go become a porter.

And I missed the Witt reference, but I do agree with him regarding getting a job. You're not bowing down to corporatism, capitalism, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Trumpism, GW Bushism, or whatever it is that represents all that is evil by admitting to the value of hard work. I'm pretty sure even Marx envisioned that people would work hard.

And I'd expect you'd even admit to the real benefit of getting out of the rut of dependency and directionlessness when you secured a challenging job.

I agree about the value of hard work, that autonomy and independence are spectacular... winter time makes me particularly thankful.

I don't know what Question should do though, I think that he's going to do what he wants unless forced to do otherwise, all the while punishing himself for not wanting the things he wished he wanted. That's what I'ma do at least.