3 ms·
I very much agree with the author's thesis here. I think there is a kind of derangement especially among SV types about making every job about rescuing the worl
by DubiousPusher 4y ago
I very much agree with the author's thesis here. I think there is a kind of derangement especially among SV types about making every job about rescuing the world. And I think it comes from exactly this place of the human need for spirituality which is currently starved. But I had to screech the breaks for a second at this conjecture.
> Their work was a matter of subsistence and necessity; it was not a race for status or an existential search for meaning.
As far as I can tell, this cannot be farther from the truth. Pre-industrial people explicitly found existential meaning in their labor.
Their culture, religion and traditions enveloped every aspect of life. Their spiritual frameworks provided direction on everything like how to milk a cow, how to prepare meals, whom to marry and how to raise children.
Milking a cow and raising a child were responsibilities conveyed by a celestial benefactor. The proper execution of both paid praise and showed thankfulness to that benefactor. In this way labor was suffused with meaning.
Humans lost this for sure. This is partly why labor strife was so intense during the industrial era. People were not just stripped of their standard of living but also of a huge part of their ability to structure the world around them. Without a labor environment suffused with meaning they became desperate. It took their agency and dignity. The Luddites for example were driven more by disdain for the subservience the factory system creates than by a fear of total displacement.
This kind of modernist/progressive thinking towards history is probably the worst thing people take away from high school and undergrad history courses. It's so misleading and it creates this psychic barrier that most people never break down.
- Dalewyn 4y ago>Their spiritual frameworks provided direction on ... whom to marry and how to raise children. As a non-religious man (no, not atheist: non-religious), I can definitely say that the lack of an overbearing deity or otherwise some sort of Code of Divine Conduct(tm) prescribing such things has led me to put such frivolous matters as marriage and family aside and very likely never touched upon again. Objectively, I simply can't justify all the problems that come with associating with women in any capacity beyond that of simple friendship or professional relations (as in co-worker, etc.). I also see no need for myself to contribute another spawn to humanity, since humanity is clearly more than adequately providing for itself. >This kind of modernist/progressive thinking towards history is probably the worst thing people take away from high school and undergrad history courses. Whitewashing of history in general is abhorrent and patently worthless, we need to consider moments in history within the contexts of the time in order to derive anything of value to us in the present.
- houseinthewoods 4y ago:( Maybe I'm indoctrinated and you're not but please reply to this comment if you end up falling in love down the line, it'd be funny and make me happy <3
- shrimp_emoji 4y agoI think the object, ideally, is to meet a person you like so much that the problems and sacrifices that a (active, committed) relationship entails are worth it. To be suckered into soul-draining bad relationships on the pretenses of imaginary friends in the sky that told you to do it sounds hellish.
- yucky 4y agoAs another non-religious but not atheist person, your worldview has nothing to do with your take on religion. I don't share that position on women or family at all and it sounds like a really depressing way to view life. I can't think of anything more rewarding in my life.