4 ms·

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not

by jlos 6y ago

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kind of public intellectuals, their hubris in thinking they can define what makes a life meaningful for someone-- everyone--else or that they are often given positions of actual influence. Then again, maybe things makes more sense if the people running the world think the only thing giving other peoples lives meaning is work.

mongol 6y ago
Seems they think that those lives serve no utility for others, thus they are not meaningful. Forgetting that a life is most meaningful for the person whose it is. Would have expected more stringency from an intellectual.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
conjectures 6y ago
I'd like to agree and note that assuming we get to post-scarcity conditioning quality of life on work will be a bad definition. On the other hand I recall, as a PhD student, David Cox lightly napping in the audience of a conference (he'd have been about 90), only to wake up for the questions and fire off some insights. So there is certainly some merit in the theory of a nexus between 'meaningful work' and living a long and engaged life, at least for some people.
- incrudible 6y ago
  QUALY is not conditioned on work productivity, Ezekiel Emanuel has done a poor job of representing it to the public. The truth of the matter for most people though is that if they are unable to do meaningful (to them) work this leads to depression. For the anecdote given by the author, the grandmother could perform meaningful work (counseling) still.
lnenad 6y ago
It's an issue of the human condition, once you reach a point where you're superior to one person, you start thinking you're superior to all.
lm28469 6y ago
> > These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. Made me think about a few Frankl's quote > For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion, “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it. The funny thing is that people shitting on other's "meaningless hobbies" are very often in the second category he talks about: > Moreover, there are various masks and guises under which the existential vacuum appears. Sometimes the frustrated will to meaning is vicariously compensated for by a will to power, including the most primitive form of the will to power, the will to money.
malwarebytess 6y ago
It would be sad if it wasn't infuriating. If they had only influence over their own lives then this would only a sad story. Idiots like John Lee decide the cancerous policy that configures our society. They as well be demons because their entire lives seem to be dedicated to torturing human beings by contorting their lives into an unnatural and subordinate lives as if it's the only thing that gives them pleasure.
Damorian 6y ago
Imo, society needs more of this, and these ideas are not in any way new to philosophy. We live in an age of widespread hedonism and much of the way people live is unhealthy on an individual and societal basis. I fully reject the "be yourself, do what makes you happy" mindset of today because the ideal day for a young person now is sleeping in, eating sugar for breakfast, smoking weed, playing video games and watching porn all day. Most people don't take it to that extreme, but too many people, in my opinion, go in that direction instead of the direction of moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race and improves their life outside of momentary feelings of pleasure.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race Do not assume that everyone has the freedom to make such decisions. Moral decisions are ones that you can make regardless of life circumstance. Many people simply cannot afford the traditional lifestyle of getting married and having kids. I don't mean incels, I mean that all over the world there are young people who want to marry and have kids but are locked into economic situations that preclude the ability to take that "moral" path.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    This is partially caused by the thinking in the article. The modern selfish senior would rather live 5 more years in a nursing home with a bad quality of life than give their inheritance to their children. The inheritance is instead given to the state and megacorps. Many of our parents inherited a home.
  - Damorian 6y ago
    I would encourage you to read up on "the success sequence". It's very simple to avoid poverty, but it involves depriving yourself of pleasure. I say this as someone who grew up in poverty and escaped it.
    - sandworm101 6y ago
strulovich 6y ago
An obvious missing thought by John Lee here is that people would go for their hedonism at different ages depending on their expected years remaining. If you told me I will live to 100, quitting at 70 to travel the world sounds ok. If you told me I’ll die at 50, I will be retiring before that. By prolonging life from 80 to 90, we also encourage people to retire later. So even if “meaningful” would mean “work” (and oh boy, it doesn’t) it still is important to to prolong life. You can always trust an intellectual to not consider anything but first order effects I guess.

by jlos 6y ago

mongol 6y ago

Seems they think that those lives serve no utility for others, thus they are not meaningful. Forgetting that a life is most meaningful for the person whose it is. Would have expected more stringency from an intellectual.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

conjectures 6y ago

I'd like to agree and note that assuming we get to post-scarcity conditioning quality of life on work will be a bad definition. On the other hand I recall, as a PhD student, David Cox lightly napping in the audience of a conference (he'd have been about 90), only to wake up for the questions and fire off some insights. So there is certainly some merit in the theory of a nexus between 'meaningful work' and living a long and engaged life, at least for some people.

incrudible 6y ago
QUALY is not conditioned on work productivity, Ezekiel Emanuel has done a poor job of representing it to the public. The truth of the matter for most people though is that if they are unable to do meaningful (to them) work this leads to depression. For the anecdote given by the author, the grandmother could perform meaningful work (counseling) still.

lnenad 6y ago

It's an issue of the human condition, once you reach a point where you're superior to one person, you start thinking you're superior to all.

lm28469 6y ago

> > These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. Made me think about a few Frankl's quote > For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion, “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it. The funny thing is that people shitting on other's "meaningless hobbies" are very often in the second category he talks about: > Moreover, there are various masks and guises under which the existential vacuum appears. Sometimes the frustrated will to meaning is vicariously compensated for by a will to power, including the most primitive form of the will to power, the will to money.

malwarebytess 6y ago

It would be sad if it wasn't infuriating. If they had only influence over their own lives then this would only a sad story. Idiots like John Lee decide the cancerous policy that configures our society. They as well be demons because their entire lives seem to be dedicated to torturing human beings by contorting their lives into an unnatural and subordinate lives as if it's the only thing that gives them pleasure.

Damorian 6y ago

Imo, society needs more of this, and these ideas are not in any way new to philosophy. We live in an age of widespread hedonism and much of the way people live is unhealthy on an individual and societal basis. I fully reject the "be yourself, do what makes you happy" mindset of today because the ideal day for a young person now is sleeping in, eating sugar for breakfast, smoking weed, playing video games and watching porn all day. Most people don't take it to that extreme, but too many people, in my opinion, go in that direction instead of the direction of moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race and improves their life outside of momentary feelings of pleasure.

sandworm101 6y ago
>> moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race Do not assume that everyone has the freedom to make such decisions. Moral decisions are ones that you can make regardless of life circumstance. Many people simply cannot afford the traditional lifestyle of getting married and having kids. I don't mean incels, I mean that all over the world there are young people who want to marry and have kids but are locked into economic situations that preclude the ability to take that "moral" path.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  This is partially caused by the thinking in the article. The modern selfish senior would rather live 5 more years in a nursing home with a bad quality of life than give their inheritance to their children. The inheritance is instead given to the state and megacorps. Many of our parents inherited a home.
- Damorian 6y ago
  I would encourage you to read up on "the success sequence". It's very simple to avoid poverty, but it involves depriving yourself of pleasure. I say this as someone who grew up in poverty and escaped it.
  - sandworm101 6y ago

strulovich 6y ago

An obvious missing thought by John Lee here is that people would go for their hedonism at different ages depending on their expected years remaining. If you told me I will live to 100, quitting at 70 to travel the world sounds ok. If you told me I’ll die at 50, I will be retiring before that. By prolonging life from 80 to 90, we also encourage people to retire later. So even if “meaningful” would mean “work” (and oh boy, it doesn’t) it still is important to to prolong life. You can always trust an intellectual to not consider anything but first order effects I guess.