4 ms·

So how does this jive with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776, which states that suffering can lead to

by nether 11y ago

So how does this jive with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776, which states that suffering can lead to a more meaningful and selfless life?

patkai 11y ago
This may be a good theory question, but in your personal pursuit of happiness would you rely on a blog post or an intelligent sounding reply? :)
javert 11y ago
It doesn't, because that article (the one you link to) is hopelessly confused.
perrywky 11y ago
he found no meaning being a lawyer, but he found creativity and love being a kids musician. Suffering leads to nothing, it's the meaning leads you through suffering.
a_bonobo 11y ago
I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison. There's no "bigger" purpose in that. As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids, he catches glimpses of that (whether he actually understands that is hard to say, he'd have to be able to 100% become a child to see the child's point of view).
- collyw 11y ago
  "just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).
  - angdis 11y ago
    It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.
    - dghf 11y ago
      Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?
      - frobozz 11y ago
        > repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty" One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal. Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty". However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
        dghf 11y ago
        If your interpretation of angdis' comment is correct, I'm even more at a loss. What is wrong with people being found not guilty of one offence even though they've previously been convicted of others? In what way is it an example of justice not being served?
        11y ago
toyg 11y ago
In a way he did suffer, by renouncing financial security and steady employment, in order to achieve a more meaningful life.

by nether 11y ago

So how does this jive with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095776, which states that suffering can lead to a more meaningful and selfless life?

patkai 11y ago

This may be a good theory question, but in your personal pursuit of happiness would you rely on a blog post or an intelligent sounding reply? :)

javert 11y ago

It doesn't, because that article (the one you link to) is hopelessly confused.

perrywky 11y ago

he found no meaning being a lawyer, but he found creativity and love being a kids musician. Suffering leads to nothing, it's the meaning leads you through suffering.

a_bonobo 11y ago

I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison. There's no "bigger" purpose in that. As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids, he catches glimpses of that (whether he actually understands that is hard to say, he'd have to be able to 100% become a child to see the child's point of view).

collyw 11y ago
"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).
- angdis 11y ago
  It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.
  - dghf 11y ago
    Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?
    - frobozz 11y ago
      > repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty" One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal. Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty". However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
      - dghf 11y ago
        If your interpretation of angdis' comment is correct, I'm even more at a loss. What is wrong with people being found not guilty of one offence even though they've previously been convicted of others? In what way is it an example of justice not being served?
        11y ago

toyg 11y ago

In a way he did suffer, by renouncing financial security and steady employment, in order to achieve a more meaningful life.