7 ms·

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

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.

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.