4 ms·

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

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

>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.