I think it really narrows discussion, whenever anything outside the mainstream is called "trolling". It is one thing to disagree with my position, its another to say it is entirely illegitimate and that no real person could feel as I do. You have my word that I have had these actual discussions with my dad, and this is a situation I'm facing.
Did any of y'all see Neil Fergueson's ascent of money. He said that businessmen need the carrot of vast wealth and workers the stick of dire poverty in order to keep the economy running. Well if you didn't treat me like a horse, a mere beast of burden. But as a human personality, who knows what I could accomplish? Thomas Jefferson, Aristotle, Socrates all the Greeks, they didn't have to work for a living. Did they become lazy bums? If I were free to work freely. I wouldn't be a couch potato. I would sculpture my body into a work of art. I would tame nature. I would change the course of mighty rivers. I would take part in industry. I would study natural science and philosophy and explore the depths of metaphysics. I would write poetry, paint artwork, sing hymns. Who knows what a free me, would be capable of? So its that I need a chance to do, not freedom to sit on my butt.
That is what is lost, when a soul like mine is enchained to a Jabba the hutt boss.
As shocking as it may sound I find your mode of life, and decision to accept work as irrational as you find my rejection. I don't understand why and human being would submit himself to this sort of existence. Of course the easy answer is you gotta eat. But that eatings for the sake of eating, thats purchasing life as the expense of the chains of slavery. Its selling your body nay your soul. Selling your body to a boss is like a prostitute selling herself to an extra sadistic John who wants to plat master. Work to survive. Why? So I can survive to work. Look I know from a functionalist practical perspective what I'm saying is nonsense and what you say is logical. But from a cosmic metaphysical perspective you folks are speaking gibberish, and my nonsense is perfectly rational. Which is right? Since when was the worm's eye view so superior to the bird's eye view. Why is it so blindingly obvious that the small picture trumps the big picture?
Why I haven't been as insulting, to be honest the life you folks have accepted seems just as crazy to me as mine does to you.
Perhaps people are being defensive because the questions I'm posing necessitate major value judgments upon your life choices. Everyone here has implicity already answered my question in their own lives without ever really asking it. Every decision in your life has a purpose, eat to be full, get money to get a car, get a car to attract girls to have a wife and kids etc. But if you follow the infinite regress you get what Thomas Aquinas called the sunnum bonum. Now for me I can't so much as lift a pencil until I know what the ultimate aim of doing so is. So to shoot my cosmic perspective down without really addressing its core arguments is to defend your own mode of life.
There has to be another road.
Socrates, Plato, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre. It all leads here. What is the good life? If you don't know what your ultimate aim is then your first move is a wrong move. Francis Bacon said method was everything. The fastest runner going down the wrong road, just goes further in the wrong direction.
This short youtube video from Schopenhauer, might give you an idea of my perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pwItrhEZo
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
