4 ms·

There's truth to this post but overall I think it's pretty naive. In a capitalist system the world belongs to those who own and have spare capital to invest vs

by ldp01 9y ago

There's truth to this post but overall I think it's pretty naive. In a capitalist system the world belongs to those who own and have spare capital to invest vs. those who rent. Being very good at creating things is a potential pathway from renter to owner, but so is being very good at maintaining things, or managing people, etc. Anything which you can be paid a lot of money for will do.

winter_blue 9y ago
I think the author point was about what would bring the greatest self-fullfillment. It's not necessarily money. You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment.
- ldp01 9y ago
  Fair enough, but I think it's a simplification of how life really works for most people. For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't a trade off between more money and more satisfaction. If they fail to become successful they will significantly lose out in terms of life's more basic needs, because they won't have enough money. Edit: Don't get me wrong, I would love to agree with OP. But I don't think human society is there yet.
  - infiniteparamtr 9y ago
    I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful artist" as one getting paid for their efforts. I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves. Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience. In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective. Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.
    - ldp01 9y ago
      > I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. How many former humanities students do you know? If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't". If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc. Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).
  - saltedmd5 9y ago
    Actually, I think your comment is a simplification: there absolutely is a trade-off between money and satisfaction. That doesn't mean you have to become a starving artist to increase your satisfaction level - just that prioritising x means compromising on y. That might mean working a lower-skilled job you can just clock in and out of so you can focus your efforts and time on other things you care about or even just applying your existing specialism in an industry/company that offers you more creative freedom at the expense of some compensation.
  - sophiaellis 9y ago
    This was meant to be more of a commentary and how much people have switched from spending time on their discovering and acting on their interests to spending hours simply watching others via social media and then feeling frustrated.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment. Those who create might be that, but they are notorious for also being fussy, difficult to satisfy their creative urges, and often abuse themselves, etc. We can also say that you can have tons of fulfillment without either making 10x at some job, or "creating" -- just by enjoying life, friendship, eating, relaxing, traveling, etc. So, in that sense "the world belongs" to those who can enjoy it. (Of course if we extend that to the logical extreme, the world belongs to the easily amused. Which might be a valid point).
  - J-dawg 9y ago
    "The world belongs to the easily amused" sounds like a great philosophy to live by. I'm going to remember that!
    - sophiaellis 9y ago
      Hahaha I loved this conclusion. Some people took this way too seriously. I'm a recent college grad who, instead of getting a 9-5, spent the last 4 years building relationships with clients who I LOVE creating for. More than anything, this is a commentary on how much time I watched my friends watch other people live rather than find out what they love.
  - sampl 9y ago
    > Those who create might be that, but they are notorious for also being fussy, difficult to satisfy their creative urges, and often abuse themselves, etc. Sometimes true, but is that because of who they are or how whether they're producing? I'd argue for creative types, not creating can just make all this worse.

by ldp01 9y ago

winter_blue 9y ago

I think the author point was about what would bring the greatest self-fullfillment. It's not necessarily money. You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment.

ldp01 9y ago
Fair enough, but I think it's a simplification of how life really works for most people. For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't a trade off between more money and more satisfaction. If they fail to become successful they will significantly lose out in terms of life's more basic needs, because they won't have enough money. Edit: Don't get me wrong, I would love to agree with OP. But I don't think human society is there yet.
- infiniteparamtr 9y ago
  I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful artist" as one getting paid for their efforts. I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves. Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience. In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective. Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.
  - ldp01 9y ago
    > I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. How many former humanities students do you know? If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't". If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc. Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).
- saltedmd5 9y ago
  Actually, I think your comment is a simplification: there absolutely is a trade-off between money and satisfaction. That doesn't mean you have to become a starving artist to increase your satisfaction level - just that prioritising x means compromising on y. That might mean working a lower-skilled job you can just clock in and out of so you can focus your efforts and time on other things you care about or even just applying your existing specialism in an industry/company that offers you more creative freedom at the expense of some compensation.
- sophiaellis 9y ago
  This was meant to be more of a commentary and how much people have switched from spending time on their discovering and acting on their interests to spending hours simply watching others via social media and then feeling frustrated.
coldtea 9y ago
>You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment. Those who create might be that, but they are notorious for also being fussy, difficult to satisfy their creative urges, and often abuse themselves, etc. We can also say that you can have tons of fulfillment without either making 10x at some job, or "creating" -- just by enjoying life, friendship, eating, relaxing, traveling, etc. So, in that sense "the world belongs" to those who can enjoy it. (Of course if we extend that to the logical extreme, the world belongs to the easily amused. Which might be a valid point).
- J-dawg 9y ago
  "The world belongs to the easily amused" sounds like a great philosophy to live by. I'm going to remember that!
  - sophiaellis 9y ago
    Hahaha I loved this conclusion. Some people took this way too seriously. I'm a recent college grad who, instead of getting a 9-5, spent the last 4 years building relationships with clients who I LOVE creating for. More than anything, this is a commentary on how much time I watched my friends watch other people live rather than find out what they love.
- sampl 9y ago
  > Those who create might be that, but they are notorious for also being fussy, difficult to satisfy their creative urges, and often abuse themselves, etc. Sometimes true, but is that because of who they are or how whether they're producing? I'd argue for creative types, not creating can just make all this worse.