4 ms·

> How can [the idea that in the past that the average person did not expect to be happy] even be proposed? Maybe I just read way too into this. Is it a joke? F

by jt2190 5y ago

> How can [the idea that in the past that the average person did not expect to be happy] even be proposed? Maybe I just read way too into this. Is it a joke? First off, the author continued: > Life could be a struggle for survival with hard work and adversity at every corner. Marriages were arranged by parents and if, after 20 years, the couple hated each other, there was no option to divorce. While I guess that particular life experience is not necessarily incompatible with happiness (“I love my life as a sustenance farmer!”) it was definitely, by modern standards, very hard, and not at all what most people strive for in their retirement.

52-6F-62 5y ago
The author is making a lot of assumptions about fundamental matters of philosophy and human psychology. For instance, before we escape the first phrase in the section you quoted the author assumed that hard work and adversity run contradictory to happiness—or even actively oppose it. I left the Gordon Lightfoot reference for a reason: the pleading of people for more material resources as the only road to their personal salvation from misery is there in psalm as a "rich man's spiritual". "If I only had more X I could find my happiness/peace/salvation". In this article Mr Greenspun appears to begin to make a departure from that notion, but seems to keep tripping over strongly-held beliefs justifying a lust for financial rewards. That's not an easy thing to get away from. Hell, there are tomes upon tomes about that very struggle—confusing the idea that you may as well enjoy the material to your capacity (he references Camus in that manner) with the material enjoyment being a prerequisite for your happiness.
- mvp 5y ago
  It is unavoidable for the kind of article the author is writing. He is trying to give the perspective of a person who has 'been there'. This I imagine is very interesting to read for people who want to 'be there' or going to. For them, an article that doesn't deal too deeply into philosophy may be more appealing. This is possible only if the author makes a lot of assumptions. And of course, if you don't agree with those assumptions, you'll just move on.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    I didn't introduce the philosophical notions myself. The author makes plentiful use of them, but inaccurately. That's worse than not using them. It's like pasting rm -rf / in an article about Fun Bash Commands. People who know enough won't be harmed, and either find it funny or moronic. But those who don't know enough can be injured.

by jt2190 5y ago

52-6F-62 5y ago

The author is making a lot of assumptions about fundamental matters of philosophy and human psychology. For instance, before we escape the first phrase in the section you quoted the author assumed that hard work and adversity run contradictory to happiness—or even actively oppose it. I left the Gordon Lightfoot reference for a reason: the pleading of people for more material resources as the only road to their personal salvation from misery is there in psalm as a "rich man's spiritual". "If I only had more X I could find my happiness/peace/salvation". In this article Mr Greenspun appears to begin to make a departure from that notion, but seems to keep tripping over strongly-held beliefs justifying a lust for financial rewards. That's not an easy thing to get away from. Hell, there are tomes upon tomes about that very struggle—confusing the idea that you may as well enjoy the material to your capacity (he references Camus in that manner) with the material enjoyment being a prerequisite for your happiness.

mvp 5y ago
It is unavoidable for the kind of article the author is writing. He is trying to give the perspective of a person who has 'been there'. This I imagine is very interesting to read for people who want to 'be there' or going to. For them, an article that doesn't deal too deeply into philosophy may be more appealing. This is possible only if the author makes a lot of assumptions. And of course, if you don't agree with those assumptions, you'll just move on.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  I didn't introduce the philosophical notions myself. The author makes plentiful use of them, but inaccurately. That's worse than not using them. It's like pasting rm -rf / in an article about Fun Bash Commands. People who know enough won't be harmed, and either find it funny or moronic. But those who don't know enough can be injured.