7 ms·

The advice isn't bad at all, but then you've heard it all before. Most people tend to figure most of this out by the time they are in their mid-thirties, or nev

by Bakary 6y ago

The advice isn't bad at all, but then you've heard it all before. Most people tend to figure most of this out by the time they are in their mid-thirties, or never do. I can only speak from my own perspective, but the irony is that the people I tend to be deeply impressed by don't tend to follow this sort of mechanistic or "optimized wisdom" approach to life. They tend to be more chaotic, less rational (sometimes dangerously so), often dickish but always displaying a vision of life that is deeply felt and never sterile. It may sound paradoxical and counter-intuitive, but you could follow all of the advice from the post and still lead an uninspired existence that doesn't amount to much in the end. Some other posters here mentioned how the list felt like an accusation, but I would say in my case that I felt a rush of melancholy from its superposition of being both solid actionable advice but also deeply wrong in ways I can't fully express. A person like the author does impress me, as they probably are living up to whatever potential they were granted. I envy their wealth, freedom to work on interesting things, and the fact that they worked towards something and achieved it. But I don't get that sense of unstoppable awe and desire that I get with people like Hemingway, Napoleon, or even those few anonymous, adventurous and idiosyncratic souls you once met that you still think about from time to time. You probably have an example of the latter in your own life that instantly came to mind when reading this, or perhaps you can extrapolate a description of them through the knowledge of the world you've garnered so far.

bumby 6y ago
>But I don't get that sense of unstoppable awe and desire that I get with people like Hemingway, Napoleon, or even those few anonymous, adventurous and idiosyncratic souls Here’s what I wonder: is it possible to admire such people while simultaneously acknowledging they live a semi-tortured existence that may not be worth emulating? I think the author was shooting for equanimity which may be somewhat different than how those types would be described
matwood 6y ago
Your last paragraph reminded me of this quote, It is only possible to succeed at second-rate pursuits -- like becoming a millionaire or a prime minister, winning a war, seducing beautiful women, flying through the stratosphere, or landing on the moon. First-rate pursuits -- involving, as they must, trying to understand what life is about and trying to convey that understanding -- inevitably result in a sense of failure. A Napoleon, a Churchill, or a Roosevelt can feel himself to be successful, but never a Socrates, a Pascal, or a Blake. Understanding is forever unattainable. Therein lies the inevitability of failure in embarking upon its quest, which is none the less the only one worthy of serious attention. --Malcom Muggeridge
- Bakary 6y ago
  When I was younger, I was more impressed with the "second-rate" category. Then I switched to that "first-rate" ideal he describes. Now my understanding lies in the middle and I find both types to be awe-inducing as long as they testify to a lust for life or some degree of active curiosity. In fact, I came to reject the binary and hierarchical classification altogether. If you asked me to delineate precisely by what criteria I find someone impressive or not, I could not for the life of me give you a useful answer. Even if a person were to attain an understanding of life (which I agree is unattainable), they would still be faced with the impermanence of it and the fact that some actions are so intense and deeply felt as to need no further justification for their undertaking. Life still has to be lived after you come to conclusions about it. Or rather, the full expression of life as far as we can understand it isn't only to be found in contemplation but also in action, creation, and simple serendipity whether thoughtless or thoughtful. A bit like that joke where a person picks wisdom instead of a million dollars as a wish, then concludes that they should have picked the money. I mean this in a metaphorical sense, of course.
munificent 6y ago
> They tend to be more chaotic, less rational (sometimes dangerously so), often dickish but always displaying a vision of life that is deeply felt and never sterile. Here's a chain of logic I'm pondering: 1. Few things cut as deeply and personally as failure, especially failure where the stakes are high. 2. That implies that our failures are our most meaningful, individual experiences. 3. Which in turn implies that a life with a minimum of failure is a life with little meaning or individuality to it. 4. Does that therefore mean that those who have failed the most, who have the greatest ratio of failure to success, are the ones who are living life most vividly? How should I balance that against the obvious reality that failing sucks? In other words, if your goal is to live a unique life, the Anna Karenina principle [1] implies that you should aim for unhappiness. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
- clairity 6y ago
  that's putting the causality backwards. you should aim to have interesting experiences and thoughts. the failure and unhappiness will follow if that's what's in store. if you aim for failure and unhappiness (the poor proxy), it's likely you'll miss out on the interesting experiences and thoughts, which is the meaningful part. this is, again, how we get unintended (and unwanted) consequences in so many aspects of our lives (partisanship is another good example).
  - munificent 6y ago
    > that's putting the causality backwards. Sure, I didn't necessarily claim that my list was literally true. Just a thought exercise. > you should aim to have interesting experiences and thoughts. I think is as prone to Goodhart's Law as my suggestion to aim for unhappiness. If you try to deliberately aim for interesting experiences and avoid uninteresting ones, you'll need to gather some data first. So you ask around and see what experiences other people find interesting. But, of course, what could be more uninteresting than doing what everyone else thinks is interesting?
    - clairity 6y ago
redisman 6y ago
I think that's true but people also need chances for the first time to find out about things so repetition is fine. I remember learning a few important things about myself from reading a dubious self-help book when I was a teenager. I wouldn't recommend that book to anyone as I now think it's mostly BS but it did give me a few pointers to guide my life. It was something akin to stoicism and hard work having meaning on itself. I just had never had anyone talk to me about such things. I really like posts that make you stop and think about your life for a second.
sticky_thrrwwwy 6y ago
Man, some days I wish I could give up an eye and an arm to have the quiet but intense passion I've seen in some people. I've tried cultivating whatever hint of passion I've had before and it sputters out. Someday I worry I'm a zombie inside.
- Bakary 6y ago
  I don't think guilt or self-blame is warranted here. After all, you can't choose what to desire almost by definition. You can only choose to pursue your desires or not, and that's assuming free will is a meaningful concept to begin with. It also has to be said that modern life isn't particularly conducive to inspired existences. At dark times in my life I've felt the exact same as you: the idea that there is some spark missing that disqualifies us from being human. But looking at it more dispassionately (pun not intended), it's clear that this is neither a helpful nor particularly correct way of framing the problem. On one hand, much of life is random, and on the other the value of small things and a contemplative life is often disparaged without reason. I can recommend the essay The Concept of Experience by Mark Grief as it helped me a lot on this specific point.

by Bakary 6y ago

bumby 6y ago

>But I don't get that sense of unstoppable awe and desire that I get with people like Hemingway, Napoleon, or even those few anonymous, adventurous and idiosyncratic souls Here’s what I wonder: is it possible to admire such people while simultaneously acknowledging they live a semi-tortured existence that may not be worth emulating? I think the author was shooting for equanimity which may be somewhat different than how those types would be described

matwood 6y ago

Your last paragraph reminded me of this quote, It is only possible to succeed at second-rate pursuits -- like becoming a millionaire or a prime minister, winning a war, seducing beautiful women, flying through the stratosphere, or landing on the moon. First-rate pursuits -- involving, as they must, trying to understand what life is about and trying to convey that understanding -- inevitably result in a sense of failure. A Napoleon, a Churchill, or a Roosevelt can feel himself to be successful, but never a Socrates, a Pascal, or a Blake. Understanding is forever unattainable. Therein lies the inevitability of failure in embarking upon its quest, which is none the less the only one worthy of serious attention. --Malcom Muggeridge

Bakary 6y ago
When I was younger, I was more impressed with the "second-rate" category. Then I switched to that "first-rate" ideal he describes. Now my understanding lies in the middle and I find both types to be awe-inducing as long as they testify to a lust for life or some degree of active curiosity. In fact, I came to reject the binary and hierarchical classification altogether. If you asked me to delineate precisely by what criteria I find someone impressive or not, I could not for the life of me give you a useful answer. Even if a person were to attain an understanding of life (which I agree is unattainable), they would still be faced with the impermanence of it and the fact that some actions are so intense and deeply felt as to need no further justification for their undertaking. Life still has to be lived after you come to conclusions about it. Or rather, the full expression of life as far as we can understand it isn't only to be found in contemplation but also in action, creation, and simple serendipity whether thoughtless or thoughtful. A bit like that joke where a person picks wisdom instead of a million dollars as a wish, then concludes that they should have picked the money. I mean this in a metaphorical sense, of course.

munificent 6y ago

> They tend to be more chaotic, less rational (sometimes dangerously so), often dickish but always displaying a vision of life that is deeply felt and never sterile. Here's a chain of logic I'm pondering: 1. Few things cut as deeply and personally as failure, especially failure where the stakes are high. 2. That implies that our failures are our most meaningful, individual experiences. 3. Which in turn implies that a life with a minimum of failure is a life with little meaning or individuality to it. 4. Does that therefore mean that those who have failed the most, who have the greatest ratio of failure to success, are the ones who are living life most vividly? How should I balance that against the obvious reality that failing sucks? In other words, if your goal is to live a unique life, the Anna Karenina principle [1] implies that you should aim for unhappiness. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle

clairity 6y ago
that's putting the causality backwards. you should aim to have interesting experiences and thoughts. the failure and unhappiness will follow if that's what's in store. if you aim for failure and unhappiness (the poor proxy), it's likely you'll miss out on the interesting experiences and thoughts, which is the meaningful part. this is, again, how we get unintended (and unwanted) consequences in so many aspects of our lives (partisanship is another good example).
- munificent 6y ago
  > that's putting the causality backwards. Sure, I didn't necessarily claim that my list was literally true. Just a thought exercise. > you should aim to have interesting experiences and thoughts. I think is as prone to Goodhart's Law as my suggestion to aim for unhappiness. If you try to deliberately aim for interesting experiences and avoid uninteresting ones, you'll need to gather some data first. So you ask around and see what experiences other people find interesting. But, of course, what could be more uninteresting than doing what everyone else thinks is interesting?
  - clairity 6y ago

redisman 6y ago

I think that's true but people also need chances for the first time to find out about things so repetition is fine. I remember learning a few important things about myself from reading a dubious self-help book when I was a teenager. I wouldn't recommend that book to anyone as I now think it's mostly BS but it did give me a few pointers to guide my life. It was something akin to stoicism and hard work having meaning on itself. I just had never had anyone talk to me about such things. I really like posts that make you stop and think about your life for a second.

sticky_thrrwwwy 6y ago

Man, some days I wish I could give up an eye and an arm to have the quiet but intense passion I've seen in some people. I've tried cultivating whatever hint of passion I've had before and it sputters out. Someday I worry I'm a zombie inside.

Bakary 6y ago
I don't think guilt or self-blame is warranted here. After all, you can't choose what to desire almost by definition. You can only choose to pursue your desires or not, and that's assuming free will is a meaningful concept to begin with. It also has to be said that modern life isn't particularly conducive to inspired existences. At dark times in my life I've felt the exact same as you: the idea that there is some spark missing that disqualifies us from being human. But looking at it more dispassionately (pun not intended), it's clear that this is neither a helpful nor particularly correct way of framing the problem. On one hand, much of life is random, and on the other the value of small things and a contemplative life is often disparaged without reason. I can recommend the essay The Concept of Experience by Mark Grief as it helped me a lot on this specific point.