3 ms·

> The problem is not about being hard working or not hard working. It is about the constraints around that hard work; or lack thereof. In late modern labor soci

> The problem is not about being hard working or not hard working. It is about the constraints around that hard work; or lack thereof. In late modern labor society the normativity is to achieve in itself, without any philosophical or ethical constraints that grounds achievement in real meaning. It is a pick-and-choose buffet of values and priorities, that is individually curated - rather than also being synchronized with others, the past and the future - and there is only one rule, that you have to achieve. That is of course not true. Individually curated means synchronized with others as no individual exists in a vacuum; it feeds on others, on the environment, on history, and others feed on the individual, and the environment is modified by the individual, and history written by it. That it is free to evaluate its own future path is not the same as not being also part of something else, much less not take into account the something else. Achievement in itself is, unparadoxically, and achievement. That you don't agree with it says more about your synchronicity with the rest of society than the opposite.

acituan 5y ago
> That is of course not true. Individually curated means synchronized with others as no individual exists in a vacuum ... That it is free to evaluate its own future path You misunderstand. The question is whether individual value structures converge/approximate to a superstructure outside every individual, not whether individuals can use environment, history, each other etc as an inspiration for their custom tailored lives. The sense of the former was destroyed with the end of modernism. Everything dissolved in an acid vat of infinite relativism. Every normativity other than growth in the market got destroyed/crumbled. And individual achievement is merely the projection of that at the atomized level. > Achievement in itself is, unparadoxically, and achievement. That you don't agree with it says more about your synchronicity with the rest of society than the opposite. I take that as a compliment because one of the things I aspire to is to not get dissolved in the blind allegiance to achievement and excess positivity. It usually gets unnoticed but when people excessively project themselves to achievements and future growth; they turn into massive narcissists. And I am not using that in the pejorative sense; they lose a grounded sense of themselves. The freedom from "improving", being able to have leisurely, contemplative time, enjoying "returnless" social encounters for their own sake, having a sense of limits etc counter that. I wish they were valued more.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  > You misunderstand. The question is whether individual value structures converge/approximate to a superstructure outside every individual, not whether individuals can use environment, history, each other etc as an inspiration for their custom tailored lives. You misunderstand. They of course converge, there is no other alternative but for society to be a reflection of their individuals. You don't like the answer so you pretend what they converge into is not worthy somehow because it doesn't adhere to some high societal morality standard which by the way just so happen to be the morality you ascribe to, which is of course nonsense. > I take that as a compliment because one of the things I aspire to is to not get dissolved in the blind allegiance to achievement and excess positivity. > It usually gets unnoticed but when people excessively project themselves to achievements and future growth; they turn into massive narcissists. And I am not using that in the pejorative sense; they lose a grounded sense of themselves. Oh the irony.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - acituan 5y ago
    Just stop. If you don't have a counter-argument that is not an ad-hominem attack, strawmanning someone's position or shallow namecalling, you don't have to participate. This is not the forum for that. Here is HN Guidelines for your reference. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In particular; > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Incidentally, this is a good example to the value superstructure I was talking about. It is not a passive culmination of individual preferences, it is an aspirational guidepost sitting outside of us as a reference point. It allows selecting what behavior belongs to what extent and what doesn't. It tells us we can do better and what that better looks like.

acituan 5y ago

> That is of course not true. Individually curated means synchronized with others as no individual exists in a vacuum ... That it is free to evaluate its own future path You misunderstand. The question is whether individual value structures converge/approximate to a superstructure outside every individual, not whether individuals can use environment, history, each other etc as an inspiration for their custom tailored lives. The sense of the former was destroyed with the end of modernism. Everything dissolved in an acid vat of infinite relativism. Every normativity other than growth in the market got destroyed/crumbled. And individual achievement is merely the projection of that at the atomized level. > Achievement in itself is, unparadoxically, and achievement. That you don't agree with it says more about your synchronicity with the rest of society than the opposite. I take that as a compliment because one of the things I aspire to is to not get dissolved in the blind allegiance to achievement and excess positivity. It usually gets unnoticed but when people excessively project themselves to achievements and future growth; they turn into massive narcissists. And I am not using that in the pejorative sense; they lose a grounded sense of themselves. The freedom from "improving", being able to have leisurely, contemplative time, enjoying "returnless" social encounters for their own sake, having a sense of limits etc counter that. I wish they were valued more.

insert_coin 5y ago
> You misunderstand. The question is whether individual value structures converge/approximate to a superstructure outside every individual, not whether individuals can use environment, history, each other etc as an inspiration for their custom tailored lives. You misunderstand. They of course converge, there is no other alternative but for society to be a reflection of their individuals. You don't like the answer so you pretend what they converge into is not worthy somehow because it doesn't adhere to some high societal morality standard which by the way just so happen to be the morality you ascribe to, which is of course nonsense. > I take that as a compliment because one of the things I aspire to is to not get dissolved in the blind allegiance to achievement and excess positivity. > It usually gets unnoticed but when people excessively project themselves to achievements and future growth; they turn into massive narcissists. And I am not using that in the pejorative sense; they lose a grounded sense of themselves. Oh the irony.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- acituan 5y ago
  Just stop. If you don't have a counter-argument that is not an ad-hominem attack, strawmanning someone's position or shallow namecalling, you don't have to participate. This is not the forum for that. Here is HN Guidelines for your reference. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In particular; > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Incidentally, this is a good example to the value superstructure I was talking about. It is not a passive culmination of individual preferences, it is an aspirational guidepost sitting outside of us as a reference point. It allows selecting what behavior belongs to what extent and what doesn't. It tells us we can do better and what that better looks like.