4 ms·

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?

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.
    - ravitation 10y ago
      Okay. This will be my last comment in this chain. A normal article would say: Here's why you should do X. And then it would explain why you should do X. This article does not do this. It makes a universal statement about the immorality of being a burden, and says if you're a burden you don't deserve your passions. And it fills the rest of the space with strange anecdotes about Santiago, and ridiculous judgments from a man who, from what I can tell, followed his passions to his paycheck. If the only interesting part of an article is in my head, why was the article written? This article provides absolutely no interesting insight at all. I know meaning has been a hard sell in this conversation, but... The difference between my conditional statement and a question, is that in my statement I'm only providing a solution to a problem, not defining the problem. The theme of my article would be "what to do if you need a job," not "you need a job." I'm not trying to provide clarity into the "why" just the "what." That's fundamentally different than this article. I don't have a special exemption for burden. I'm not dissecting the sentence. I just look for substance in the things I read, I didn't find any here.

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.
  - ravitation 10y ago
    Okay. This will be my last comment in this chain. A normal article would say: Here's why you should do X. And then it would explain why you should do X. This article does not do this. It makes a universal statement about the immorality of being a burden, and says if you're a burden you don't deserve your passions. And it fills the rest of the space with strange anecdotes about Santiago, and ridiculous judgments from a man who, from what I can tell, followed his passions to his paycheck. If the only interesting part of an article is in my head, why was the article written? This article provides absolutely no interesting insight at all. I know meaning has been a hard sell in this conversation, but... The difference between my conditional statement and a question, is that in my statement I'm only providing a solution to a problem, not defining the problem. The theme of my article would be "what to do if you need a job," not "you need a job." I'm not trying to provide clarity into the "why" just the "what." That's fundamentally different than this article. I don't have a special exemption for burden. I'm not dissecting the sentence. I just look for substance in the things I read, I didn't find any here.