That makes you feel safer (emotionally), but it doesn't necessarily commute rationally. I have quite a decent medical knowledge (of course nothing like a professional - but I could go head to head with a 2nd year medicine student, and some conditions/diseases I understand really well), and many doctors I've been to were disappointing in their "knowledge" and advice. Some of the advice I got actually harmed me. It's a fine line knowing when to listen to a doctor and when to ignore his advice - it's easy to go the wrong way in both cases.

Over time, I've shifted to doctors who listen to me and do as I say, and away from the very stubborn ones who insist on their way regardless of what I say. This year, for example, I avoided a surgery by finding a doctor who did as I told him. I also got a foot infection though from ignoring a doctor's advice - so it can go both ways. Health is a very complicated subject - best not to get ill, and if you do, use your own brain to help you decide and judge doctors and their advice.

And my original point still stands; these people prefer to have this £80,000 a year job with its higher tax than the £12,000 a year job with its lower tax, so even though it might not be fair, it's still the better option. — Michael

Depends. Is the better option to have higher social status (that's mostly what that job is) and join the insane asylum when you're 50 because of too much stress?

Well, you actually said "from a meagre paying wage job", but even then, if you're earning £28,000 then it'd take 65 years to pay back £60,000 (not including interest), as it's 9% of income over £17,775, so £920.25 a year. — Michael

Right. Yes you are correct, I just tried it. I have no idea what error I did when I calculated the first time. Either way, I've just assumed they had to pay £36,000 (just tuition fees) in loan repayments and they'd make up the remaining 6K/year working part-time or over the summers.

I don't think it's the government's job to reward people. Its job is to provide necessary services to the country, which at the very minimum is keeping everyone alive, healthy, and safe. — Michael

Right, but it shouldn't be the gov's job to punish people who haven't done anything illegal.

That's not how democracies work. Or are you suggesting that oligarchies are a fairer form of governance? — Michael

No, I'm saying that people who provide disproportionately - for whatever reason - should have greater decision power in the changes that are going to be made.

You mean aside from the armed forces, the police, a judiciary system, the fire service, the ambulance service, hospitals, a central bank, waste removal, roads, etc.? — Michael

Sure but many rich people wouldn't rely on many of the public services anyway - say ambulances, hospitals, waste removal from the list you've provided.

(Not to mention that private police services and militaries is a recipe for disaster). — Michael

I agree, obviously.

I don't think anybody is holding you hostage to your home country. You're free to move to the Cayman Islands if you like. — Michael

Yes, but when you do this, your country suffers significantly because they lose all potential taxes from you (apart from stuff that's unavoidable such as all the taxes involved with salaries/employment). They may as well settle on mutually favorable terms, then at least they get some of the taxes.

It will be paid for by increasing corporation tax and income tax for people earning over £80,000. So that wouldn't be coming out of my tax money, and if it was, I would be okay with that, as I'd be happy enough to be on a salary of £80,000 or more. I'd have a lot more left over after tax than what I currently make. — Sapientia

If you had a £80,000 salary, your costs would be significantly higher (and it wouldn't really be up to you). First of all, your job would very likely entail a lot more traveling than your current job does (that means expenses - thousands of pounds per year). Second of all, you'd be working in a central place (financial district of London for example) so in order to be efficient you'd need to live in a more expensive place. In order to create a good impression you'll also need expensive clothing (probably required by your employer), as well as attend dinners/lunches at expensive places. And so forth.

Granting how expensive the UK can be, ~£80,000/yr (roughly 7K/month) isn't even that much (anywhere in Eastern Europe though - if you make 7K/month you're probably a big bank director >:O ) That's why I've told you before it's the cash flow that matters. Someone making ~80K as an employee in the UK ain't rich. When you get to £200,000/year and up, then you're talking about starting to get rich. The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet, are highly stressed, and making them pay 9 billion in educational costs makes no sense - they just cannot pay, they don't have the cash flow necessary. These people typically wake up at 50 completely burned out, with no hopes left in life.

I spent ~£27,000. That was back when tuition was £3,000 a year (plus £6,000 maintenance). — Michael

Yeah, that commutes to ~£60,000 with the current tuition of £9,000 (9K*4+6K*4). As for the years I cited best case scenarios (starting with a very good job at £25,000-£28,000, and growing). My point is even 6-8 years is terrible for the value you get out of it.

The rich (or some of them, rathe) complain about a having to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, but given that almost everyone would prefer to earn £80,000 and pay 50% tax than earn £20,000 and pay no tax, it's hard to empathise. — Michael

The government doesn't reward the rich well enough. If I'm a billionaire, I have no problem paying for education a large amount of money. But that means I should have disproportionate rights in absolutely controlling how that education gets implemented (afterall, it's my money!). Not some dumb politician to take my money and do stupid things with it. I should have control over what happens to that money. If that happened, then rich people, at least many of them, would be interested to pay their fair shares of taxes. But at the moment, there's no benefits to paying your taxes. You're better off taking that money away to a fiscal paradise.

None of this changes, however, that holders of a university degree earn substantially more over their lifetimes than those who don't hold such a degree (again, at least in the U.S.) — Arkady

That "substantially" doesn't mean much. It's the difference between $20K and $60-80K/yr (and even with a degree it takes 10s of years to reach that level) with the stipulation that people who earn bigger salaries are often required to travel more, attend more expensive events, live in more expensive places (close to the job), etc. In real cash flow terms, it doesn't end up being a big difference. They live at slightly higher standards of living, but because their bigger wage implies bigger costs, they are still a few pay-checks from starvation.

However, beyond the "politics" aspect, a university degree also sends a sort of honest signal to an employer, i.e. that this applicant was qualified to gain admittance into a university, was intelligent and disciplined enough to complete the course work, etc. — Arkady

Well I, for example, wouldn't look at that as a plus necessarily. It's not that hard to gain admittance to even great universities if that's your only goal in today's age. I know some people who graduated from top universities who are utter idiots. Their degree doesn't change that. As for "completing the course work" => most people cheat, even on that. It's amazing how much cheating is going on in Universities. Back when I attended, I never cheated, but I know many people who have, including paying to get others to do their course works.

Unfortunately, as the value of degrees becomes debased by things like affirmative action or legacy admissions, grade inflation, or lowered standards for academic coursework, this signal likely communicate less useful information to employers. — Arkady

I agree - degrees aren't what they used to be.

Well, I'm with Labour who've pledged to abolish university tuition fees. — Sapientia

That's a terrible idea. Do you imagine how many people will start going to university if tuition fees are abolished? Where will that money come from? Remember the costs are ~£9,000/student/year and at the moment, with the current tuition fees, there are 500,000 UK only students attending. That's £4.5 BILLION/year. And the number of students who attend will increase significantly if tuition is made 0. Say doubling (universities are smart - they will market, to get funds from the state, that's free and easy money, just for attracting more students). Are you prepared to pay £9 BILLION every year for free education out of your own tax money?

Also, please note that one reason why the quality of University has degraded so much is that University is no longer "elitist" -> there's too many students.

which probably greatly varies by major: engineering or accounting majors on average probably obtain more job-specific skills than those majoring in ethnic studies or Renaissance poetry — Arkady

I hold an engineering degree. Learned almost 0 useful material. You go on a construction site afterwards, and don't understand anything. That's disgusting preparation, especially for someone who holds an Honours degree. It's all theory - but life is very different from theory. Academics like theory, because it's static, and it's easy to teach and control theory. It's much harder to teach real world.

Employers want that "piece of paper," — Arkady

Depends who the "employers" are. Large(r) companies want it not because they need it, but it's a way for the person in charge of hiring to guard his behind if you end up being a bad hire. He can then say to his managers - "oh well, I did my best, look at his education here, he seemed to have been the perfect candidate!". It's all about politics, not doing what's best for the business.

But, say someone came to be employed by me (a small company/employer) - I'd only have one real question, apart from getting to know their personality - can you get whatever job I'm hiring for done well? If you can, let's see it, and I'd give them a real world test right away. If they perform well, that's all I care about. I don't give a toss about their degree, because I've seen too many idiots with degrees. And there's many like me, especially smaller companies. Smaller companies care about results - politics, reputation, and bullshit aren't relevant.

I wouldn't make the blanket statement that it's definitely not worth it. — Sapientia

I agree, but the careers for which it is worth it aren't many (doctors come to mind).

I never went to college or university, and I have no intention of going. — Sapientia

Yeah, I definitely think it's not worth the money. If I knew what I know today, and I had sufficient confidence back then to refuse the peer-pressure, I wouldn't go either.

You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. I think you're far better off learning something valuable by yourself while working a job - any job pretty much - that pays your bills, and lets you save some.

Yes, but barely. Basic maths, for example. — Sapientia

The question is mistaken - Heister is referring to university/college education - at least that's what our discussion in the other thread was about. I hope you didn't wait until college to learn basic maths :P

↪John You're a good citizen. — Mongrel

↪Mongrel

Probably not as good as you might think, and certainly not as good as I'd like to be...
:-O — John

Nobody is perfect. :) — Mongrel

↪Mongrel

True :) — John

Awwww, so sweet (L)

To be honest - I don't see much how a degree can help. It's just a reputation thing - reputation just decides on how much effort you need to put in to get a job in the first place - but once you get a job, that becomes your reputation, and the degree is completely irrelevant. If you have the skills in a certain industry - unless that's something like medicine - you'll be able to get hired even without a degree, provided you have a little bit of salesmanship in you.

The issue with many people is that they get a degree, but truth be told, you don't actually learn much practical and valuable skills in University - even if you do a technical degree. But they brainwash you to think you have. So when you go to a job, you expect to be able to do lots of things, but the rude awakening is when you find out that you're mostly incapable to do anything of real value (how frustrating - you spent 4-5 years, and you're still not a professional...). That's what I found as an engineer. So the company effectively has to train you - invest time in you - and that costs money. So they'll likely train you to become specialised in one small area - invest just a little time in you to make you productive - and that's it. Your skills will not grow at all UNLESS you yourself put in extra effort, above and beyond work to learn and better yourself.

I know people for example who have been working in IT at multinational corps. for well over 10-15 years, and many of them have weaker programming skills than someone self-taught like me over the past ~1-2 years. In fact, the person I'm talking about recently requested that I give them tutorials to learn JS. How is that possible? Because they do lots of paperwork, and the same repetitive tasks day in and day out - when they don't know something they just ask a colleague, or give it over to someone else to do. Working as an employee (esp. in large companies) is 90% politics, and 10% work. It all ends up about office politics - kinda like school - whose the most popular, whose the coolest, who socialises the most, who goes to the best holidays, who goes drinking with the manager etc. But very little focus on who gets the job done. And it kills your creativity and problem solving skills.

When I have a problem for example, I am always forced to find out by myself how to solve it, there's no support network around. So you learn how to search, who to contact, how to get the answers you need from people, how to leverage your connections, etc. Whereas in a job where everything is given to you on a platter, you don't really learn much.

I mean all that is fine if you just want to pay your bills, but if you want sufficient freedom to use your time to help others, and actually do something for the world, those degree requiring corporate jobs aren't going to do you much good. Your best bet is still to study and work at home, by yourself, to learn something different while working your day job.

In my opinion, the economy should be based on small producers - entrepreneurship. Large, dominating entities should be discouraged. The intention of the economy is to give people the greatest amount of freedom - so work which ties one into imbecile rituals, and keeps them a wage slave is ultimately contradictory to the aims of a humane economy.

Also, "No. And I don't care". The "Don't care" answer seems to me suggest that I don't care to answer the question. — Michael

Yes, the poll is biased quite heavily towards people who are helped by their degrees, in my opinion. Also the question "does your current job utilise your education?" assumes (without saying) that education is only what you learn in school/college/university. But that's just simply a false assumption. Of course my work - for example - utilises education - and big time. But it's not the education I received in school. Heister seems to have built a Crooked and Lyin' Poll! >:O

This is a fake poll!

Look at those answers. Where is the answer "Can't say, I'm unemployed with a university degree"?

None of the answers quite match my position, I'd say that I'm happy to be free not to have to rely on a degree, even though I have one. That independence and freedom is something I think is really worth having. So I answered "No. And I like it that way" even though that doesn't say much...

It's an interesting question, and I don't have a ready answer to it. To reverse the question; what more could love be than good will? Desire, perhaps? If I desire something, do I necessarily have good will towards it? — John

I think the various forms of love have different compositions, but if we're speaking of charity/compassion then I'd say the fundamental characteristics are (1) a feeling of deep connection with others, (2) empathy, (3) good will, (4) openness. Obviously Eros or Love of God would also include desire, etc.

I find it impossible to think that if I love someone or something, that to the extent and at the times that I do love him, her or it, I do not, to the same extent, and at the same time, bear good will towards him — John

That may be so, but I'm not sure it follows that "love is good will". Sure, without good will, love may be impossible, but does that mean that love is good will and nothing more?

I would comment, but if I say anything I'm afraid @Wayfarer and @mcdoodle will say that I'm paid to write it, so I'll abstain >:O >:O >:O Or shall I go ahead and let my cash register ring ding ding ding ding as the dough pours in? :-x >:O

That's the whole point of getting a degree................... — Heister Eggcart

Who told you that? The corrupt educational system? Of course they did! That's the basic principle of selling anything, convincing your customer (read victim) that he needs your product or service - or otherwise he's fucked.

Pretty clear you've not been knee deep in the American educational system your whole life if you deny this. You're just wrong, bro. — Heister Eggcart

Oh I am well acquainted with educational systems through out the world. They all say the same shit. I too believed that shit, until I had my degree, and I saw that it really was no big deal. I wasn't actually smarter or more qualified to do anything because of my degree. I really understood that despite getting my degree with honors, I was completely unqualified in truth for any real work. I really felt I didn't know much. And so I understood that, despite them praising you and shit - university is really useless.

Whoopty fucking do, Agu. Good luck getting a lot of jobs out there that require x, y, z certain tracks of education. Just because you've found yourself in a job without a degree that specifically pertains to that job, doesn't mean every and all degrees are pieces of paper that don't matter. — Heister Eggcart

Oh, so you think I just magically landed in such a job, completely by accident right?

Because I need to pay the bills. You come on out to the rust belt here in the midwest and show me how eazy peazy it is to just start a business and make bank. — Heister Eggcart

>:O >:O >:O Unbelievable mate, you're complaining?! If I can start a business and make money in a fucking ex-communist country, full of corruption, bureaucracy and crooked laws which squash small businesses and help only big oligarchs, why can't you do it in the greatest capitalist country on Earth?! Just the mere fact you're American => that's instant credit worldwide.

And who said you have to let your location hold you back? You don't even need to start a bricks and mortar business. You could do something internet based - work anywhere in the world from this "rust belt" middle of nowhere place, so long as you have a computer and an internet connection. If you ran, for example, a web design agency - you could get your projects anywhere in the world. If you ran a digital marketing agency - same shit. I guess you could even open a writing business. And you're American - that alone puts you ahead of most everybody out there. What can the poor Indians running web development companies and trying to get international projects say then? Why can these people do it, even though they have all the disadvantages in the world? Language barriers, etc.

If I came to that fallow field, I'd show you how eazy peazy it is to bring in 5K/month revenue in no time - just one month. 60% time getting projects, 40% doing them yourself or giving them off to others to do in parts for you. It's really not that difficult if you're willing to work, persevere, and handle the worst imaginable emotions and thoughts ("oh I'm failing, never gonna make it, this is stupid, I'm wasting my time, oh this is so hard - never gonna learn it, my client will be mad, etc. etc.). Make 100 phone calls every day - you'll find work, after 5 days of rejection. It really all has to do with never giving up, and resisting pain and stress.

Change this negative attitude of yours from "it's impossible" to "how can I make this work?"

I've been talking about pursuing a degree in Philosophy. I don't think I've ever heard a positive response. Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless."

How would you respond? — anonymous66

All degrees are stupid, unless you run out of toilet paper, then any degree would be quite helpful! ;)

Do something useful that will help others. Ask yourself: how can I make the world a better place? Or go smaller - how can I make my city/town/village a better place? What do people need? What will better their lives? Give it to them, they will pay you. Look around you - what do they need? Identify it. Supply it to them. Be an upstanding member of your community who spends his life doing truly useful work. Do you think Archimedes, or Leonardo Da Vinci had degrees? That didn't stop them from doing useful work and helping others (and posterity).

They're right. — The Great Whatever

It reminded me of this scene >:O :

Which means that, ya, crying and waiting is usually about all many can do. — Heister Eggcart

But it does take a lot of will to keep crying and waiting you know. It's not like that's the easiest thing in the world either.

But your typical young philosophers, or typical people say on a philosophy forum, are not going to be sensitive to these sorts of deeper and more subtle connections between things, because they're still infatuated with Hume. And so they're more likely to play word games with the categories rather than try to explain, or even wonder, why these connections might hold. Hume's world-view leads only to logic-chopping and absolutely nothing else, and is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that once you assume everything is totally disparate from everything else, there's literally nothing to say about anything. — The Great Whatever

Let me be a necromancer for once and raise this thread from the dead.

The problem with Hume is the problem that is often encountered with modern Western philosophy. A very legalistic, and logistic way of doing philosophy - a lack of awareness of how we actually learn about the world. The process of learning does not involve logical processing of information. Logical processing seems to be helpful only to put data into a coherent whole, enable better predictability, determining consistency, and easier retrieval (connected data is easier to retrieve than disconnected) - but it certainly cannot produce any new data. So when induction fails for Hume - all that it shows is that we cannot reason our way to new data - new information. We need to appeal to the contents of experience, and induction in order to be able to do that.

I think I did that. Though probably much closer to the grave than you are (at 70+) I haven't ceased trying to achieve, and be an upstanding character. — Bitter Crank

*takes hat off* :) Yes, I respect you. You have your principles - not the same as mine, but at least you have the integrity of sticking to them - which is great!

But what is better? joyful music in the summer or drudgery all the way to the grave? — Bitter Crank

Heh - I don't take work to be drudgery. It's rewarding doing something useful for others - including making music for that matter. I haven't said that making music in the street is better or worse than assembling parts in a manufacturing plant on the conveyor belt for example.

The same thing can be said for everything that humans are or might be. "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but I actually disagree with that part. There are some things - the spiritual things - which are not meaningless. Doing great work is a spiritual undertaking of benefiting your fellow men - that's something to be proud of, that not even death can take away (the fact you've done good).

I'm saying is that I should not "start" at those sorts of jobs after getting a degree which is supposed to land me a job that isn't burger flipping or trash collecting. — Heister Eggcart

Why is a degree "supposed to land you a job"? Why do you think that?

one must still get an education in order to have any reasonable hope of getting a job in the field that they'd like to work in. — Heister Eggcart

Not true. I work in web development, database management & recently online advertising - I have no degree in any of them. Completely self taught. I hold a degree in civil engineering - so yeah. People are misguidedly obsessed with degrees - that's why they get stuck at certain levels in society and never move beyond. A degree is a fucking piece of paper - means very little. I've probably seen more incapable people with degrees than without :P

Uh, no. — Heister Eggcart

Well, why not?

But is death real? We use logic to determine what's real and fearlessness is the logical stance in the face of the uncertainty of death. You can doubt me and my logic all you want, it doesn't make me not right. — Noblosh

No, we don't use logic to determine what's real at all. Logic doesn't tell us ANYTHING about what's real and what's not real. Logic helps us relate different facts of existence. It doesn't tell you if there's a pink elephant in your back garden right now, or if unicorns exist somewhere in the Universe. All knowledge comes from the senses, and is merely processed with logic. Is death real? Yes, at least in an ordinary sense, I've witnessed it, and I know it's real.

But "Doing your duty." is still not a goal in itself.
Duty implies obligation, not desire. — Noblosh

Your goal is whatever you choose. If you choose to be a righteous man, then your goal becomes your duty.

With indifference. If it's coming anyway, there's no point in our encounter. — Noblosh

Words. Let's see you do that.

Death is just an event, not a combatant. Again, there's no use in fearing that which can not be prevented, therefore in the face of death, I'm fearless, it's only logical. — Noblosh

Logical, but is it also real?! Logic alone does not move men. Logic alone does not dispel fear, nor does it give you the courage to live. Logic alone is vacuous and empty of any and all meaning - it is a sheer nothing. So no, I don't believe - if I am to take you at your word - that you are fearless because of logic. There are deeper and more powerful emotional reasons why you are fearless, if indeed you are.

Free from responsibility you mean. After all, the one whose sole purpose is to work is not concerned with the morality of it at all because work itself is absolute. — Noblosh

Yes, if you add assumptions that I made no mention of, sure.

I'm sorry but this is the no true scotsman fallacy. — Noblosh

Pff, give me a break with these childhood posts. I have over 4000 posts here (and who knows how many thousands at the previous forum) - I'm well aware of what's a fallacy and what's not.

I think we're beyond mythological metaphors. Sure, humans may colonize space, exploit the stars, do great things and become godlike but that wouldn't make them any more godly. I'll definitely be myself. — Noblosh

Right, and colonising space, exploiting stars, etc. isn't mythological >:O

So... Who the heaven would waste their time to gift us? You're not being consistent. — Noblosh

Someone who loved you, even if you were a worm? There's no point hating a worm, but there is a point in loving a worm (or any other creature). There is an asymmetry there.

That's not a goal, goal implies ambition and ambition implies desire which you condemn. — Noblosh

No, I don't condemn desire. I condemn desire for that which is evil. I don't understand why you've made the assumption I condemn desire.

It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality. — TimeLine

Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. Hence the two people who form a family cannot be two "independent" people. No they must be dependent - and whatever forms that dependency is valuable, whether it is love, need, religion, purpose. Having a leader amongst the two, and a follower, also helps. One flesh cannot have two heads.

who is independent — TimeLine

Not necessarily. It may be possible, but it depends on the circumstances and the people what's right.

morally conscious — TimeLine

Okay, agreed.

you share your life and continuously improve. — TimeLine

Yes, but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving - that's sufficient for lovers, not for husband and wife.

or someone who is evil or deceptive. — TimeLine

Agreed, deception is a no-no.

It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her — TimeLine

With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. That "mindless" person has saving virtues - humility and devotion - and is to be preferred over the independent mindful person who always wants to go their own way.

Have you been to the bank recently?... (hint: bank tellers aren't exactly jonsing for CEO positions). — Noble Dust

And yes, actually the last time I went to the bank, I had to do the bank teller's job for him. That's the kind of service I usually get. I usually see incapable people everywhere - people who don't give a fuck about their work, and just want a damn salary at the end of the month. If they themselves despise their work so much, why should anyone give a fuck about it?

Another example - I've changed four accountants this year - nobody has any clue what they're doing. Quite often I end up knowing more than my accountants. How is that possible? They went to school for it! They work every day in it. They have the degrees, and the fucking experience too. I studied and learned the law by myself just in one year - I'm not schooled in finance, law, etc. Why is it that I can pose problems to them that they cannot answer?! Why are they so damn stupid? Why does an uneducated brute like me know more than they do?! Why is it that I go to jail if something is wrong with my accounting procedures, and they get a free card?! Because they don't give a fuck about their job - they don't put heart in it - they don't focus on giving me value - doing great work for the sake of it. No - they just want my money - that's it. That's why they'll never make anything of themselves. It's all "me me me" - all crying about this and that, but never doing anything worthwhile. Their "work" isn't work - it's a joke. They can spend 8 hours at the office, talking with their colleagues, having fun, fucking around, flirting, and other bullshit - then they work for like 2 full hours. That's wasted time in my eyes. It is my firm conviction that God will give to those who deserve it - to those who can do great things with what they're given for others - whether this is in sharing knowledge, providing services/products, creating great art, achieving scientific breakthroughs, etc. - those who can't and don't put any effort in - they'll have everything taken away from them.

Have you been to the bank recently?... (hint: bank tellers aren't exactly jonsing for CEO positions). — Noble Dust

No, not in the beginning at least. People at that level still take prestige though - they work at JPM while their friends work at McD's - in their local environment, they see themselves as kings.

So rising through the ranks would never lead to a position that would prohibit a "man" from doing his duty? — Noble Dust

No, that is just impossible. Not even death can prohibit a man from doing his duty. It's just he himself who can do that.

So, doing a "man's" duty is to "do as much as possible"? Is that it? — Noble Dust

As much as possible for others and for the world - yes.

Here's a few links at random:

http://newyorkbehavioralhealth.com/workaholism

http://www.workaholics-anonymous.org/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/your-money/getting-workaholics-to-stop-and-recharge.html

http://nyhre.org/events/a-bio-psychosocial-perspective-on-addiction-from-heroin-to-workaholism-by-dr-gabor-mate/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/nyc-workaholism-map_n_5336981.html — Noble Dust

I don't have time to check through all those links at the moment, if you could provide me a summary, like, workaholism leads to these problems:

•
•
•
•

I may be able to give you my opinion on that. That's if you want my opinion, if you don't, then no point bothering.

Oh, so it's not your problem? Idiot. You have no sense of empathy. What I meant by that is that some people have no sense of self-worth, based on their life experiences, which ties back to the topic of this thread. I'm one such person; one such worm. Say that to my face. — Noble Dust

So you'd rather have me fake that it is my problem? You'd rather have me lie to your face, and tell you that I can give you a sense of self-worth, so that you'll forever remain stuck and bound to me, like a slave and a sheep? Is that it then? Would you rather have me look at you as a child, who has no chance to rise up by himself - who is weak and helpless - maybe just what you see when you look in the mirror. But I don't - because I know there's more to you.

I'd rather tell you the truth. No one can give you a sense of self worth except yourself. When I say it's your problem - it is. Only you can solve it. It's useless to give this problem to me - I cannot help you. You blame your life experiences, this and that. Who gives a fuck? Wake up - you are not the prisoner of your past. All my life I've been an underdog, and I can honestly say that I've never lost, because I've never given up - I've never allowed others to define me, I helped myself, with the strength and capabilities that God has given me. Stop being a worm and cursing the gods for your weakness - you have been given ample means, a great intelligence - stop looking at what you don't have. I had so much stuck up against me - chronic depression, anxiety, almost failed in university, lived in a highly restrictive environment as a child, etc. etc. I don't have fingers to count the number of times I've failed and lost a battle - I don't have fingers to count the number of times I've been told I can't do it, the number of "authorities" who have told me I'll always be depressed, etc. What pulled me out? Sheer will, strength of spirit, and using the gifts and capabilities that God gave me. Certainly not crying about it, and blaming my past. I had never left the vicinity of my home until I was 16 - can you imagine? Stop crying about how hard you've had it. The rest of us didn't have an easy time either. Your happiness won't fall from the sky - God gave you the means, but he won't also give you the ends. It's up to you to achieve them - or fail - or die trying.

No, I dispute the value of "being remembered". — Noble Dust

Being remembered is just the result of providing value to the world. The value lies in what you've done - remembrance is just a sign.

So the bank teller at Chase wouldn't be able to do a similarly upstanding job? — Noble Dust

He would. Just that most people who choose to work there have other reasons.

then when exactly does the moving up become reprehensible? Once you start working at Chase, or what? What exactly is this goal of moving through the ranks? — Noble Dust

Never. It is a man's duty to do as much as possible for the world and for his fellow men while alive and capable. Moving up can help with that. What's the goal? Doing your duty.

Once again...someone working for Chase (or more accurately), Wall Street, may have these aspirations. And that's not a good thing. — Noble Dust

I agree. But their aspiration isn't to work. It's to drive expensive cars, and have lots of women around them.

But let me try to spell it out more succinctly: There is an ethos of workaholism in NYC. The impetus for this depends on many factors. That was my original argument here. Workaholism can be a problem; for instance, in a city like NYC. You can either dispute this claim by doing some research on workaholism in NYC, or assume that, as someone who lives here, I'm on to something. *shrug* I honestly don't even care — Noble Dust

How about you start telling me why workaholism is a problem then instead of beating around the bush and sending me to do research?

No, but the worm may curse itself. — Noble Dust

That's his problem.

Remembered...remembered...remembered... — Noble Dust

Yes, what's the issue with it? You dispute the value of helping others, inspiring others, and doing your duty to God?

For instance, you recently referenced working for McDonalds in a positive light. I could think of any number of reasons why working for McD's is morally reprehensible. — Noble Dust

I referenced working at McD's in a positive light in terms of that being your start. You wouldn't be like other McD's workers - you would actually care about customers, put soul into serving them, try to speak with them, be nice, kind, bear with the lack of nobilities coming from your collegues - do great work for the sake of work. And then you'd go home, and study, work, learn. Sooner or later, you'd graduate McD's.

I would venture to guess you don't have much first hand experience in understanding this ethos. — Noble Dust

Trust me - London isn't much different. I understand it. That's why I don't live in such cities.

Of course I agree with you that working for Chase, or some such, is morally reprehensible. — Noble Dust

No, I don't think their corporate "greed" is what's reprehensible. What's reprehensible is that you're there just for status. Not to work. Not to do a great job. You're there for the parties and for the sniffing of cocaine and the driving of expensive cars. That's who you sold your life to - not to work.

Do you not consider workaholism a problem? — Noble Dust

No. There's never too much work. Work sets man free.

What about those who work in the publishing industry (allowing you to read the books you read), or the art world (setting the bar on what is and isn't art, as ridiculous as it is?) I'm saying this as someone who lives here, and has my own harsh criticisms of the ethos here. — Noble Dust

The industry they work in is irrelevant. It's the hypocrisy of working for status, fast cars, women, etc. that is in question.

Sometimes life seems a gift, other times, it seems a curse. — Noble Dust

A curse - give me a break, us mortals are not worth cursing. Who the hell would waste their time to curse us? Would you curse ants, worms and dust?

Furthermore, you began by using language of "remembered by", and now you switch to begging the question of "throwing life away". So it seems you're equating the value of life with being "remembered". This is what I have issue with. — Noble Dust

People who help others are remembered. People who inspire others are remembered. People who render service unto the world, and do their duty to God - they are remembered. People who care just about themselves and enjoying life - they are not remembered - they send themselves straight to the fires of hell.

Not because of laziness: because of the prevailing environment of workaholism. — Noble Dust

No my friend, it wasn't workaholism that destroyed them. It was their lust, greed, shamelessness and sloth - you were right in saying that those who "work a lot" there also "party a lot". It's the partying that killed them. The truth is - they've never worked. Not real work. It's always been fake work, for a J.P. Morgan or some shit. Useless work. Wasting time in an office. 50% of "work-time" is wasted by most people. It's, as I said before, all smoke and mirrors. Drop the smoke and mirrors.

I'd rather not be remembered at all. The entire premise here is as empty as the materialism you critique. — Noble Dust

So you'd rather throw away your life? No gratitude at all, for having been gifted with it.

If Ludwig didn't enjoy himself while he was here, I see no need to follow suit. — Bitter Crank

What's the point of enjoying yourself BC, you'll end up in the same grave, and it will be as if the enjoyment never existed. Rather do something (or try to do something) you can be proud of, and be an upstanding character. That's all that can be asked of life.

Some people are just more risk averse than others, and most people are more risk tolerant for one kind of risk than another. Some people will take great risk in athletics (climbing dangerous mountains) but are totally risk averse when it comes to money. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but risk tolerance can be changed if you force yourself to undertake more risks.

People like you excel first, achieve miracles, then get old and die. Of course, you haven't gotten old yet; time will tell whether you die first. — Bitter Crank

Well, based on my experience, people who work a lot, live a lot - and people who don't, don't live a lot. I remember reading Schopenhauer who said that life is movement - to live is to move, and act. Death follows suite after one ceases activity and lives in physical and mental sloth, because the body pulls back - it doesn't need to devote energy to the efficiency of its processes anymore, and thus it returns to dust.

Basically, the work ethic capitalism is based upon. But what I don't understand is, what's necessary? Making a living? To what end? Staying alive? That's not an end in itself.
You may find meaning in diligence but I suspect that is precisely because others don't and so I find you blaming them ironical. — Noblosh

Nothing is necessary. But let's see - would you rather be remembered as an upstanding man who devoted himself to the betterment of mankind, who struggled and toiled each and every day for something greater than himself - or would you rather be remembered as the sloth who never rose up to the challenge, and whose sole achievement in life was casting a shadow over the earth? In the long run, one man will rise amongst the stars and live amongst the gods, and the other one will disappear through the gates of Hades. Who will you be? Death is coming anyway - how will you meet it? Maybe you can hear the footsteps - even now, approaching. It's coming - and you can't escape. Will it find you snuggled up in a corner, begging for mercy - or will it find you fighting to your last breath, determined through sheer will not to give death the victory of crushing your spirit?

inequality has been rising since the 70's or 80's — Question

Along with laziness, drug use, and partying. I wonder why.

If I graduate college with a degree that can't land me a proper job, sure, I'll still have boundless opportunities to be a trash collector or a McDonalds burger flipper. But, y'know, FUCK that. I feel that if I'm educated to do x or y in field z, then I'm entitled to a job in that sector, not to work some piss shit job like I could have done without a degree beforehand. — Heister Eggcart

First there's nothing wrong with working as a trash collector or a McDonalds burger flipper if that's where you have to start. What's all this pursuit of status and pride because of a fucking college degree?
The truth is that a degree means almost nothing these days - university isn't even that hard anymore. It's not like you graduated a university in Newton's day - no you graduated a University in the day and age when it is full of drunkards, druggies, and partying - everyone knows that. Everyone knows that finishing university is nothing big anymore - it's easy, if even these crazy party goers can finish it pfff - give me a break. And rightfully so - everyone is getting a degree. If you're doing what everyone is doing you're competing against everyone, what are the chances of winning that way? How are you any different from them, why should anyone pick you and not them? How do you stand out, what makes you unique?

A degree is only helpful in one situation. If you want to get a job in a big organisation. Then a degree is needed, not because it shows you have the skills (cause it probably doesn't show that - a degree is skill faking quite often) but rather because the people in charge of employing you need a way to justify hiring you in case you do a shit job. Then they can tell the higher up managers/bosses, "oh well, he had a degree, his paper work was all okay, he was certainly the most qualified, I couldn't have done any better!" - save their own bottoms. That's when a degree is needed. Most of this world is built on forgery and fakery, not on intelligence and skill anyway - it's all smoke and mirrors, because people are damn lazy and don't put heart in their work - they just want social status and prestige, being seen well by others. What did Napoleon say - "a soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon". But how did Napoleon himself think? "A throne is only a bench covered with velvet"

But, if you seek employment with smaller companies, where the owner is directly in charge, if s/he's a smart guy/girl and does the hirings themselves, then s/he won't care whether or not you have a degree or no degree. Only one question will matter - can you do a great job?

And getting a job isn't your only alternative. You could either work as self-employed (as a contractor or freelancer) or start your own business in some field you know about. The possibilities are all there, you just have to look for them and take them. You aren't entitled to a job in any field, regardless of your education. There is no entitlement in this world, you can either provide value to others, or you can't.

I'm still trying to get you to realize that "God is equivalent to Love" is a mistaken interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

And obviously failing. Love isn't restricted to only one definition that will cover all its aspects. It seems to me that you are stuck with a theoretic rationalism which cannot see beyond itself.

The fucking nerve of these lazy sons of bitches -- wanting to enjoy life. Take them out and shoot them! — Bitter Crank

>:O "We are not here to enjoy ourselves" - Ludwig Wittgenstein

(Also, no need to shoot them. They're already shooting themselves by their terrible choice).

I would say many unsuccessful and unhappy people have lacked the knowledge (from an early age) to identify a bona fide opportunity. I blame ignorance of how the world works more than laziness. — Bitter Crank

That may be true, but I've encountered many people to whom, for example, I presented an opportunity, and who have refused it because of the risk involved, instead preferring the safer, but less rewarding and easier path. I'm not sure if that's just because of fear, or because of laziness - but perhaps both. Lack of self-belief and self-esteem is a major cause.

In addition, most people have a sort of crab mentality, and want everyone to be average in terms of knowledge, capabilities, and achievements - just like them. That's why philosophy is seen as snobbish for example.

If one is ignorant of what the required skills and knowledge are, they can't develop a plan to obtain them. Again, ignorance. — Bitter Crank

Okay, but what about those people who are told - these are the skills you need, and this is how you can learn them - and who still don't stick with it? They are clearly either (1) afraid, or (2) lazy - or perhaps (3), they don't believe it's true - OR a combination of the three. Or perhaps they just don't want to sacrifice "fun" ;)

Reaching adulthood without these traits, without a foundation of skills and knowledge, and ignorance of how to identify a practical opportunity (one which can actually be exploited) leaves one pretty much screwed. — Bitter Crank

Common, people can learn by themselves. I don't think I've learned ANY of the practical skills I'm making use of these days except by myself. I lived in a very protective family environment, so everything I've learned afterwards, was achieved through my own self devoted study. And trust me -
my parents literarily didn't allow me to do anything as a child - I didn't even buy anything by myself, since I had no money given to me as a child. I would only play close to my house at the countryside, because I wasn't allowed to travel far like other kids. The very first time I started moving farther from home when I moved to the city I was shit scared - but I forced myself through it. The very first time I moved to UK I was shit scared too - but I forced myself through it. So how did I learn practical skills? While people at 18 were smoking shit, partying and drinking, I was working, studying, reading, etc. I worked. Day after day - and I'm still working day after day today. When all else fails, who will people come to? Me - because I'm the only one sitting on solid ground. Then they'll complain how "unlucky" they have been, how their wife cheated on them, how they got fired, etc. etc. - NO WONDER! There's a price to be paid for stupidity and complacency.

True there are tragedies and bad luck. But the tragedies and bad luck are much rarer than we usually think. Most people do it with their own hands. Marry the wrong person because he was a cool guy, had a nice car, you were attracted to him, or whatever bullshit - then no wonder he cheats on you. How is that any wonder?! Really it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Or the guy who marries the prettiest girl in highschool that every guy wanted to be with, and who loved clubbing, smoking weed and having fun - then he wonders that she cheats on him! >:O >:O Jesus Christ...

That's why when I hear things like this I don't have much sympathy because I've struggled to learn almost everything by myself, with little to no help from those around me. Quite the contrary in fact, my external environment has often pulled me down. I had no skills of identifying a practical opportunity - at least none that I was taught by someone else - and I forced myself to learn it. It was nothing but pure, cold self-belief that allowed me to pull through. That time when you sit alone, and alone plot without any external aid, knowing that you lack the skills, but determined to go through, and trusting in your own destiny. The time when you feel pain, but push through the pain nevertheless. It's the will that makes it possible - it's nothing but the will to persevere despite the fear and trembling.

This pessimistic claptrap, no skills, no education, etc. is nothing but excuses. People need to stop making excuses, and then go to drink another bottle of fucking wine. No wonder they're still fucked - the wine ain't gonna pull them out of the hole! I mentioned the idea of enjoying life that is the problem before. It is the problem. Once one has given up that idea, it's easy to push oneself to the limit, endure pain, and do what's necessary - there's nothing holding you back anymore - no lost opportunities, no nothing. Just freedom to act. To climb out of the hole.

34% religious on a philosophy forum! :-O — jkop

Yes, it's about time we get our rights, and get properly recognised!

Are economics the problem--Too many people pursuing too few opportunities? — Bitter Crank

Opportunities abound. Seriously. But many people are not willing to put in the effort, and go through the fear, anxiety, etc. required to take the opportunities. They also lack discipline, will, and intelligence.

Many people expect to find a job - why? - because they think they're entitled to it. Nobody is entitled to anything. But yet many people wait on the state - give me this, give me that, make the economy better, clean my street, etc. Bullshit.

The reason why it seems like there are too few opportunities is because everyone is copying everyone else (why? because it feels safe to do that - you have to handle a lot of anxiety when you do something completely different and out of the ordinary). Everyone wants a job with Apple, because Apple pays the best. Of course it's going to be fucking hard to get that - everyone is after it. You have to look for hidden treasures that others, in their irrational mania, are ignoring.

Is life becoming too complicated for people to manage? Too many options, too many details? — Bitter Crank

I feel people have no direction in life, and expect and desire at all costs to enjoy life. This attachment to the enjoyment of life, instead of to more objective goals - such as building a family, spiritual enlightenment, building a business, etc. - leads to chaos. The fake media also promotes a fake vision of life, and instills fake values into people - that's also a big problem. I think their desire to have fun and enjoy life is what ensures the destruction of most people. Survival comes at a cost - discipline, hard work, and intelligence. Failing time and time again, and trying again and again and again. Not once, or twice, or three times - but every day, 365 days a year, for years on years.

No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; — TimeLine

Hmmm, okay, I have felt all three.

Thus who we love must be someone we admire — TimeLine

I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. I generally admire people whose achievements put me in a state of awe - people like Aristotle, King Solomon, Alexander the Great, and so forth.

Whereas in my wife, I don't want someone whom I admire, but someone who complements me (and with whom I can build a strong and lasting family - someone who is not a leech or a traitor). That means she has some values that I have - religiosity, loyalty, family-oriented - and also some values where I'm not a shining star, but which are nevertheless needed to build a family - kindness, and humility. I wouldn't care very much if she's very timid, anxious, physically weak, not the prettiest around etc. I don't admire those characteristics, but neither will I hold it against her - that's simply not part of the essentials that I'm looking for.

For ex. I may admire Mother Theresa, but that doesn't mean I'd marry her.

as someone that you would desire to mirror — TimeLine

No, I wouldn't desire to mirror my wife. Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. What did Alexander say - "there can only be one sun in the sky, and one Alexander on Earth".

The people whom I want to mirror will be some of my very good friends, whose aptitudes, knowledge or abilities I look up to (or alternatively historical figures). Admiration entails this sense of being in awe at someone or something. It's like jealousy in many regards, except that in this case it is the positive version of jealousy - it pushes you to try to become like those people. The "competition" between you makes both of you better.

If you define "love" in one way, then define "love" in another way, then the two definitions contradict each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter...

so, love is good will — John

I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire).

If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them. — TimeLine

I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails".

But two distinct meanings of "love" does not allow for reconciliation between "God is Love" and "God is loving" because "love" refers to something different in each of these cases. So these two must remain contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow this.

Why can't both God is Love and God is loving be true? :s You seem to be taking a very black and white approach to the issue.

The scriptures are revelatory. No outside decision as to their reliability needs to be made – reading them ingenuously on their own terms inclines one toward belief. — The Great Whatever

Has philosophy impacted your view / interaction with the Scriptures in any way? For example has reading a particular philosopher / philosophy inclined you towards the Scriptures or got you interested in God?

I'm asking this because recently I've become more convinced that philosophy isn't needed to come to understand the Scriptures, in fact quite the contrary, that philosophy can lead some on to blind alleys. So I'm curious how others stand on this issue.