3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.)
- ravitation 10y ago
  Okay... As a preface, when I say defining burden I'm using it in the context of this article and the question it poses. > Are you a burden to those around you? Where burden is being used as an attribute, i.e. to be a burden. This requires knowing what a burden is, which you actually stated yourself as being different from person to person. > your own idea of what is a burden which may be different from many other readers My logical reasoning, like I said, doesn't rely on some "personal non-universal idiosyncratic" definition of burden, it relies on the statement you said yourself, that what a burden is is contextual. But, the author needs a universal definition (which is why I said that burden isn't a very good word), and part of that definition is a universal judgement on the absolute moral correctness of being a burden. Am I a burden on those around me? Yes? Well maybe that's okay, because being a "burden" doesn't have to be inherently bad. That Chinese Crested Hairless is a "burden" by some definition, but that's okay. A newborn certainly could be a "burden", but that's okay. Someone's parents are paying for him or her to go to college and graduate debt free, that certainly could be a "burden", but it's also okay. He or she probably shouldn't drop out of school and get a job, so he or she can stop being a "burden".
  - jasode 10y ago
    >Am I a burden on those around me? Yes? Well maybe that's okay, because being a "burden" doesn't have to be inherently bad. Then all you have to do as a reader is personally define "burden" as "burden-that's-not-inherently-bad-which-is-okay" and therefore you mentally answer "no I'm not a burden" and the plea from the essay no longer applies. Also, I don't assume the passion-chaser coerced the parent to pay unfairly. (That was your assumption of my answer.) What's unfair is up to the reader to decide.
    - ravitation 10y ago
      Oh! So there's a bunch of context and nuance to the question? And a bunch of other questions that need to be asked about like what is bad and what is good (and what is okay), or why is it bad, or how long will it be bad? Because none of those things are discussed in the article. That pretty much undermines most of the "value" of the article, it skips all those steps in the discussion and tries to sum it up under a single (universal) question. And then goes on a terrible rant about how people don't deserve their passions. That's my entire point. How about we just skip all that garbage (e.g. bullshit) about screwing your passions and just say: if you need a job, or if you need to pay bills, or if you want to be self-reliant, getting a job is a good way to fix or do those things? Also, I never said anything about coercion, but it is implied by your use of the word make in the phrase: "don't make others (such as your parents) unfairly pay for your pursuit of passion." And I just cast a light on the implication.
      - jasode 10y ago
        >So there's a bunch of context and nuance to the question? Yes! That specific context is in _your_ (the reader's) head! >Because none of those things are discussed in the article. It doesn't have to. You know more about your situation than the article. >if you need a job, or if you _need_ to pay bills, or if you want to be _self-reliant_, getting a job is a good way to _fix_ or do those things? And anyone can do the same to your sentence that you criticize the article for. What does "need" actually mean? What does "self-reliant" actually mean? What does "fix" actually mean? Every word in every article dissected. Ad infinitum. (No, that doesn't mean I want you to you to add "context and nuance" to all those words. Same for the article about "burden." It would be tedious.) To me, your special exemptions for burden look compatible with the article. To you they don't. Seems to be a matter of about the lens of language rather than a philosophical contradiction. I don't think the article depends on 7 billion people to universally agree on what "burden" means. Very few writings outside of mathematical proofs can meet that standard of agreement.

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.)

ravitation 10y ago
Okay... As a preface, when I say defining burden I'm using it in the context of this article and the question it poses. > Are you a burden to those around you? Where burden is being used as an attribute, i.e. to be a burden. This requires knowing what a burden is, which you actually stated yourself as being different from person to person. > your own idea of what is a burden which may be different from many other readers My logical reasoning, like I said, doesn't rely on some "personal non-universal idiosyncratic" definition of burden, it relies on the statement you said yourself, that what a burden is is contextual. But, the author needs a universal definition (which is why I said that burden isn't a very good word), and part of that definition is a universal judgement on the absolute moral correctness of being a burden. Am I a burden on those around me? Yes? Well maybe that's okay, because being a "burden" doesn't have to be inherently bad. That Chinese Crested Hairless is a "burden" by some definition, but that's okay. A newborn certainly could be a "burden", but that's okay. Someone's parents are paying for him or her to go to college and graduate debt free, that certainly could be a "burden", but it's also okay. He or she probably shouldn't drop out of school and get a job, so he or she can stop being a "burden".
- jasode 10y ago
  >Am I a burden on those around me? Yes? Well maybe that's okay, because being a "burden" doesn't have to be inherently bad. Then all you have to do as a reader is personally define "burden" as "burden-that's-not-inherently-bad-which-is-okay" and therefore you mentally answer "no I'm not a burden" and the plea from the essay no longer applies. Also, I don't assume the passion-chaser coerced the parent to pay unfairly. (That was your assumption of my answer.) What's unfair is up to the reader to decide.
  - ravitation 10y ago
    Oh! So there's a bunch of context and nuance to the question? And a bunch of other questions that need to be asked about like what is bad and what is good (and what is okay), or why is it bad, or how long will it be bad? Because none of those things are discussed in the article. That pretty much undermines most of the "value" of the article, it skips all those steps in the discussion and tries to sum it up under a single (universal) question. And then goes on a terrible rant about how people don't deserve their passions. That's my entire point. How about we just skip all that garbage (e.g. bullshit) about screwing your passions and just say: if you need a job, or if you need to pay bills, or if you want to be self-reliant, getting a job is a good way to fix or do those things? Also, I never said anything about coercion, but it is implied by your use of the word make in the phrase: "don't make others (such as your parents) unfairly pay for your pursuit of passion." And I just cast a light on the implication.
    - jasode 10y ago
      >So there's a bunch of context and nuance to the question? Yes! That specific context is in _your_ (the reader's) head! >Because none of those things are discussed in the article. It doesn't have to. You know more about your situation than the article. >if you need a job, or if you _need_ to pay bills, or if you want to be _self-reliant_, getting a job is a good way to _fix_ or do those things? And anyone can do the same to your sentence that you criticize the article for. What does "need" actually mean? What does "self-reliant" actually mean? What does "fix" actually mean? Every word in every article dissected. Ad infinitum. (No, that doesn't mean I want you to you to add "context and nuance" to all those words. Same for the article about "burden." It would be tedious.) To me, your special exemptions for burden look compatible with the article. To you they don't. Seems to be a matter of about the lens of language rather than a philosophical contradiction. I don't think the article depends on 7 billion people to universally agree on what "burden" means. Very few writings outside of mathematical proofs can meet that standard of agreement.