PDA

View Full Version : critique on working for others



Shai Gar
6 Jun 2005, 12:06 PM
“Do not strive to work for others, for one can only live for ones self, if you achieve, in this way, for the betterment of mankind, then your achievement means more to the world, and as a result, to yourself.” - Shai Gar

There is an attitude that human beings are moulded to fit the market rather than vice versa where childhood is a training for employment instead of a time of play and education, this is indeed a frightening poverty of vision.

The human condition is ill suited towards serving at the expense of ones self. Each person has their own requirements, ambitions and desires, to sacrifice these is unhealthy, to sacrifice these in order to voluntarily slave for another is insane.

As William butler Yeats once said “life is not meant to be easy, but take courage child for it can be delightful” what is meant by this is that life contains hardships, however these hardships are not what life is, life is delightful, life is fun, pleasurable and we should enjoy it. Our societies current idealology is that life is hard, and we should continue persevering nonetheless against the self imposed odds to gain more and more money, and keep the governments and commerce going. This destruction of the self for the gain of the few is unhealthy and will eventually turn in on itself, one would hope however what when this inevitable revolution of thought and attitude occurs it does not drag with it many lives of people who wish to defend, to their own detriment, these societal rots.

Advancement of any Human Society requires freedom of body and mind from the institution and ** of serfdom. A majority of human history has been periods of restriction, censorship, suppression and stagnation. This is most evident in those periods of time referred to as “The Roman Times”, “The Dark Ages”, “The Renaissance”, “The Industrial Age” and “The Information Age”, where institutions such as the church, FDAA, Monarchy, and Multi-National Conglomerates hold back human advancement for a variety of reasons, but mostly in order to keep the status quo and those in power, to keep their power. The freedom of body is required in order to allow give people choice and movement enough to do whatever they choose to do. The freedom of the mind is by far the most important of freedoms, and this requires education without bias, free access to books, discussion and the quiet monologue of the mind in order to sort through ideas, philosophies and guide their life with logic and reason as opposed to superstitions, idioms, social constructs.

The most important criticism of the idea that people should work for the markets as opposed to for themselves is that human beings are gifted with the greatest blessing and worst curse, mortality. This universe is to most humans conceptions, eternal, it is in its early stages and it has many many billards of gazillions of eons to go before it even becomes slightly aged. Compared to this, what are we? Fleeting ephemeral beings with no real impact on this ultimate reality, so what we do does not matter in the long term to society, or to the universe, it matters only to us. if we choose to create in order to benefit others, then we should do so of our own unmanipulated will, and then live our life for our own pleasures, whether these be for altruism, searching for knowledge, or hedonism.

People do choose to work for others, these people are saints. Our society should not attempt to create saints out of everyone without that person taking choosing to do such. or this is slavery of the mind and body, and the one true crime and sin against ourselves in this world.

SheepDog
6 Jun 2005, 01:01 PM
It might be a good time to consider your own desires, and how our desires affect our willingness to become the voluntary slave.

Serotonin
6 Jun 2005, 01:27 PM
So is exploitation of others to the point of compromising their welfare simply another means to an end Shai?

Shai Gar
6 Jun 2005, 01:37 PM
as long as i get cash? certainly

Shai Gar
6 Jun 2005, 01:44 PM
Ghosteh: just tell them i like fascism and subservience to the* state


*mine

kafkaesque
6 Jun 2005, 03:15 PM
Very well put Shai Gar.
For those interested in similar thoughts I recommend Thoreau's essay Life Without Principle (http://eserver.org/thoreau/lifewout.html)

"I think that there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself, than this incessant business. "

Shai Gar
6 Jun 2005, 03:25 PM
interesting kafkaesque

i put that link in my bookmarks, nice to know others have similar thoughts on the topic that i can read
oh and thanks for the compliment on my eloquence

Claverhouse
6 Jun 2005, 10:18 PM
Advancement of any Human Society requires freedom of body and mind from the institution and ** of serfdom. A majority of human history has been periods of restriction, censorship, suppression and stagnation. This is most evident in those periods of time referred to as “The Roman Times”, “The Dark Ages”, “The Renaissance”, “The Industrial Age” and “The Information Age”, where institutions such as the church, FDAA, Monarchy, and Multi-National Conglomerates hold back human advancement for a variety of reasons, but mostly in order to keep the status quo and those in power, to keep their power.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Roman Times: no monarchy, no church, no conglomerates, other times --- ( what's the use ? ) The Renaissance was a period of suppression and stagnation ? The Industrial Age held back scientific and mechanical advancement ? What for ? Because the 19th century was devoted to blind faith and mediaeval obscurantism ? [ For once, I will explain: that's sarcasm. ]

Culture and art generally depends on having an advanced, even semi-advanced aristocracy: serfdom helps this. Most people in most ages have been slaves of one sort or another. They always were and always will be: you can only ameliorate the human condition, not improve it. Added to which people do what seems best to them at the time, and rarely have conscious long-term plans to suppress any knowledge except in relation to their own private faith. Even the Church protected culture and encouraged learning throughout the middle ages.

WTF would you imagine rulers or multi-conglomerates hold back, or would wish to hold back human advancement --- except in the cases where it conflicts with their own truly held faiths --- for sinister reasons ? It makes them richer and more powerful. Obviously they are not going to like political developments that would diminish their own power, but 'political developments' aka 'power to the people' are not synomymous with 'human advancement'. Apart from being absolute rubbish, and generating cruelty and oppression everywhere they are triumphant.

The question also arises of what exactly will happen when everyone is freed and encouraged to be a genius. If every single person creates a number of absolute masterpieces, we still won't see and appreciate all of them, and there wouldn't be any masterpieces because the concept will lose meaning.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Apparently you can't have 81 smilies...

coffeezombie
7 Jun 2005, 01:26 AM
The question also arises of what exactly will happen when everyone is freed and encouraged to be a genius. If every single person creates a number of absolute masterpieces, we still won't see and appreciate all of them, and there wouldn't be any masterpieces because the concept will lose meaning.


I still think you don't do enough looking for "culture," Claverhouse. While catering culture to the masses often brings about a dreary monoculture, it often produces a rich counterculture in its wake, which is allowed continued existence because of the basic freedoms that exist in democratic systems of government.

Claverhouse
7 Jun 2005, 03:02 AM
I still think you don't do enough looking for "culture," Claverhouse. While catering culture to the masses often brings about a dreary monoculture, it often produces a rich counterculture in its wake, which is allowed continued existence because of the basic freedoms that exist in democratic systems of government.
In our present civilisation the rich counter-culture is immediately sprung on by the dominants of the culture and processed and harvested for gold.

There was a thread on the use of Che's image somewhere. Even if he had had the misfortune to stay unmartyred, I can't imagine he'd have enjoyed the idea of capitalists exploiting his iconic revolutionary edge to satisfy and calm the rebellious yearnings of the youthful rich who would instinctively sit out any real revolution without taking sides.

Not that that addressed my point that we could not digest an unlimited number of masterpieces, even in eternity.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

coffeezombie
7 Jun 2005, 03:11 AM
In our present civilisation the rich counter-culture is immediately sprung on by the dominants of the culture and processed and harvested for gold.


Yeah, but there will always be something else. Personally, I'm surprised that an INTP can be such an proponent for theories of centralized all-powerful government. It seems that such monolithic governments have in the past repressed artistic expression to what they believe it should be, and thus have hindered the progress of humanity as a whole. I think humanity best develops creatively along the structure of idiots consuming vacuous mass culture on the surface, while subversive, evolutionary ideas develop under the surface.

Claverhouse
7 Jun 2005, 03:37 AM
Personally, I'm surprised that an INTP can be such an proponent for theories of centralized all-powerful government.
I never mentioned monolithic government. Government has nothing to do with art. However art has a great deal to do with a nurturing aristocratic culture.

In politics I favour a strong kingship that lets most people do whatever they want, just so long as it doesn't include them running the government, whether aristocrats, other oligarchs, capitalists, bureaucrats, the middle classes, the vanguard of the proletariat, nationalists, racialists, socialists or just plain folks. Neither do I fancy the freedom proposed by anarchs, whether gibbering eejits or cultivated property-devotees.

Any system that relies on ordinary people electing their leaders means that crooks, fanatics and dullards run things. Depends how much you love and admire your fellow humans, I guess --- some of us don't, whilst some people believe they are en masse the sole repository of goodness and wisdom --- nothing to do with type.



Claverhouse :ph34r: