4 ms·

submitted title: "To fixate on finding work that makes us happy is a luxury" blog actual title: "Screw Your Passion. Get a Job." Both the submitted title an

by jasode 10y ago

submitted title: "To fixate on finding work that makes us happy is a luxury" blog actual title: "Screw Your Passion. Get a Job." Both the submitted title and the blog's title do not pinpoint the author's main issue: don't make others (such as your parents) unfairly pay for your pursuit of passion. It's not about "passion". It's about funding. They are orthogonal. So... either: 1) pursue your passion part time while paying the bills with a "day job" -- which is what many musicians, poets, novelists, artists, etc do. 2) consciously downsize your lifestyle and stick to the budget of a starving artist (cheap apartment, used car, no Starbucks) while selling your artwork on the street or whatever. When the big commission money from the Guggenheim Museum comes in, you can start buying Starbucks. Many variations of those 2 options can keep passion-seekers from burdening their parents.

ravitation 10y ago
That operates under the assumptions that you are: 1) Making others pay for your pursuit of passion. 2) That having others paying for your pursuit of passion is unfair to them. Neither of which are safe, or even good, assumptions to make. Conversely, I am willing to assume that Santiago's father probably gladly paid for some things that allowed his son to pursue his passions, and - as stated in the piece - allowed him to do work that intersects his passions. Immigrating was probably one of those things.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Neither of which are safe, or even good, assumptions to make. I'm not making that assumption. I'm responding to the article. Author already framed it with the question: "Are you a burden to those around you?" That self-diagnostic question is really the main point of the article. The "screw passion" in the title is just provocative bait. The article goes on to admonish those who mentally say "yes" to that question.
  - ravitation 10y ago
    I am also responding to the article, and I'm also responding to your response to the article. I'm responding to part of your response that seems to take the assumptions that are made in the article at face value. Yes, he promotes that self-diagnosis without defining burden, which is also kind of the point of my response to your comment.
    - jasode 10y ago
      >, he promotes that self-diagnosis without defining burden, Personally, I don't need the author to define "burden" for me to understand his point. Part of being an adult is to judge the financial relationship with your parents as being fair. This includes overriding your parents saying to you, "Oh don't mind us, we don't need that $5000 for a European vacation or retirement funds. We want you to use it to produce your rap youtube video!" In other words, parents can be simultaneously "generous to you" and "unfair to themselves". No doubt you have your own idea of what is a burden which may be different from many other readers but it doesn't really matter right? Every parent-child dynamic is different.
      - ravitation 10y ago
        > but it doesn't really matter right? Yes, it absolutely does matter. The difference isn't that I'm defining the meaning of burden differently than you. It's that I'm choosing to not broadly define it at all (because I know that every dynamic is different), and that the author (and you) are choosing to define it. The author's entire point completely relies on a universal definition of burden because he's also making a universal statement about following one's passions. That universal definition doesn't exist because (as you said) every dynamic is different. So, his entire argument (the title of the piece) falls apart once it's understood that the definition of burden is inherently non-universal. Also, the word burden is just not a very good (e.g. very descriptive) word in this context.
        jasode 10y ago
        >falls apart once it's understood that the definition of burden is inherently non-universal. If you have a personal non-universal idiosyncratic definition of "burden", please share it. I assume its something compatible with ",gladly paid for some things that allowed his son to pursue his passions," (I don't think it would change the plug-and-play nature of the author's essay but I'm willing to be shown that _your_ definition completely throws the author's words into a mess of contradictions.)

by jasode 10y ago

ravitation 10y ago

That operates under the assumptions that you are: 1) Making others pay for your pursuit of passion. 2) That having others paying for your pursuit of passion is unfair to them. Neither of which are safe, or even good, assumptions to make. Conversely, I am willing to assume that Santiago's father probably gladly paid for some things that allowed his son to pursue his passions, and - as stated in the piece - allowed him to do work that intersects his passions. Immigrating was probably one of those things.

jasode 10y ago
>Neither of which are safe, or even good, assumptions to make. I'm not making that assumption. I'm responding to the article. Author already framed it with the question: "Are you a burden to those around you?" That self-diagnostic question is really the main point of the article. The "screw passion" in the title is just provocative bait. The article goes on to admonish those who mentally say "yes" to that question.
- ravitation 10y ago
  I am also responding to the article, and I'm also responding to your response to the article. I'm responding to part of your response that seems to take the assumptions that are made in the article at face value. Yes, he promotes that self-diagnosis without defining burden, which is also kind of the point of my response to your comment.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >, he promotes that self-diagnosis without defining burden, Personally, I don't need the author to define "burden" for me to understand his point. Part of being an adult is to judge the financial relationship with your parents as being fair. This includes overriding your parents saying to you, "Oh don't mind us, we don't need that $5000 for a European vacation or retirement funds. We want you to use it to produce your rap youtube video!" In other words, parents can be simultaneously "generous to you" and "unfair to themselves". No doubt you have your own idea of what is a burden which may be different from many other readers but it doesn't really matter right? Every parent-child dynamic is different.
    - ravitation 10y ago
      > but it doesn't really matter right? Yes, it absolutely does matter. The difference isn't that I'm defining the meaning of burden differently than you. It's that I'm choosing to not broadly define it at all (because I know that every dynamic is different), and that the author (and you) are choosing to define it. The author's entire point completely relies on a universal definition of burden because he's also making a universal statement about following one's passions. That universal definition doesn't exist because (as you said) every dynamic is different. So, his entire argument (the title of the piece) falls apart once it's understood that the definition of burden is inherently non-universal. Also, the word burden is just not a very good (e.g. very descriptive) word in this context.
      - jasode 10y ago
        >falls apart once it's understood that the definition of burden is inherently non-universal. If you have a personal non-universal idiosyncratic definition of "burden", please share it. I assume its something compatible with ",gladly paid for some things that allowed his son to pursue his passions," (I don't think it would change the plug-and-play nature of the author's essay but I'm willing to be shown that _your_ definition completely throws the author's words into a mess of contradictions.)