14 ms·

Life without work is only empty if you've been raised on a protestant "work gives life meaning" attitude and you can't envision any other way. There are monks

Life without work is only empty if you've been raised on a protestant "work gives life meaning" attitude and you can't envision any other way. There are monks living in mountain monasteries who spend their whole lives in quiet reflection, doing basic chores and making basic meals, and they believe they live the richest lives possible. I'm not saying we should all be monks, but this idea that work is the only way to live a fulfilling life is very narrow, and very much cultural.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The point is that we need something to do, to feel useful. Sitting on a beach all day every day would get pretty dull, even if it is a common dream life. I don't think this is particularly cultural. Most people who survived history did so through work so their children lived, or through raising children to be survivors. That's worth considering, instead of just blaming culture.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  I think "we need to feel useful" is absolutely a cultural thing, or at least how we define what "useful" is cultural. Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. In North America our culture strongly believes a person's value is linked to their usefulness. That's not up for debate really. I mean you can try to argue it's not, but honestly look around. Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Don't try and say it's not cultural.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Don't try and say it's not cultural. You seem to have only one counterexample: monks. Why would you assume that their highly unusual replacement of this by devotion to God is the less cultural option?
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Alright, how about Ancient Greek philosophers?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Similarly unusual, no? Compared to the number of people who aren't that? Of course a society that works to survive (which is to say: all of them) can sustain a few people not working. But that's not because they're culturally advanced people in a world of backward thinkers. It's because they were few.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Twitch streamers and TikTok influencers
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Well, they're actually part of modern culture, so I don't think they can be a counterexample from history :-)
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Ornamental hermits. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734627
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        They were amazing! And considered useful by their land owners.
    - bluefirebrand 3y ago
      Monks are just an example that very plainly demonstrates that a person's "worth" is a cultural determination, not an objective fact of human existence. Do you need me to go and list all of the ways every culture on the planet has different views on the value of an individual? I don't have that kind of time.
  - nradov 3y ago
    In the real world we have limited resources. Some societies are wealthy enough to sustain a few freeloaders without causing much trouble, but there are limits. If no one does useful work then we all freeze and starve. It's interesting to look at the social and political divisions that have been growing in Israel over the role of the Haredi (ultra-orthodox). The men are exempt from conscription and mostly don't work for wages. Instead they focus on religious study and survive on welfare and donations. More secular Israelis tend to resent the Haredi as useless lumps who don't do their fair share of work.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. That's begging the question. Historically, nearly all societies valued work because work was necessary; they valued being "useful". Historically, nearly all societies also specialized, moving some folks away from directly producing/ harvesting food and to other jobs like building tools; they also produced art, philosophy, religion, and other things which don't appear to be "useful" but _empirically are_. > Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. > We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. No. WTF, no. Most people who are "unemployed" _were_ employed and _will soon be_ employed. Most people who are homeless had a home and will soon have a home. These are usually short term circumstances. The folks who are long-term unemployed or long-term homeless are a completely different category: lots of substance abuse, mental issues they refuse to treat, refusal to adhere to basic societal norms, etc. But if someone improves themselves, wow, do folks love a comeback story. I think that's almost universal across societies, but I'm happy to see evidence otherwise. As for physically handicapped folks, plenty of them work for money. Some of them can't _but they want to_. And they find other ways to be useful to their families, their community, their society. I don't see disdain for that. But that one is definitely cultural. Historically, most societies would "put them out of their misery". Still true in Canada. > Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" > This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Generally, yes, it does. See everything above.
- Vrondi 3y ago
  It is absolutely cultural. For example, most Historians believe that while certain times of the year were packed with grueling hard work, the average medieval farm worker had absolute hordes of time off compared to the average modern worker. When the work was done, it was done. You weren't useless if you were relaxing in the down times, even large blocks of down time, and since their culture was based around seasonality, it wasn't looked down upon. Very different from modern corporate work culture, where you must appear to be working all the time, even if there's no work of value to do at a given time, and even if you worked day and night last month on a crunch project. Very much cultural.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    As in...serfs? They also starved to death and got conscripted into wars. They also probably had to work their lord's land before they got to their own, if there was time. Their lives were often terrible. They also just did more. They didn't work to earn money to employ someone to work on their house; they went home and worked on their house. That might look to a simple observer as them working less, but I doubt the serf would see it that way.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      and kings have been beheaded, therefore kings live terrible lives? The existence of something bad happening doesn't refute the point being made.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It would be if pretty much every king would be constantly beheaded, every day.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        oh definitely, because every serf got killed every day...
randomdata 3y ago
A so-called hermit monk may achieve complete solitude, but even most monks will spend some time trading something they have of value with other monks (and possibly beyond). That's all work is. A state of: I can do something for you, and you can do something for me, and we see ourselves as both being better off for it. Sometimes practical constraints means something cannot be delivered immediately, so a party may promise to deliver it later. That is all money and accounting is – a record of the promises made. We're social creatures. I expect most do truly do see life as being empty if they cannot grow with other people. Protestantism may have taken notice of that, but it didn't invent it.
dzikimarian 3y ago
Hello. Probably no single protestant influenced directly how I was raised and I still think, that doing something that you don't care about for 8h a day "because I need money" is tremendous waste of life, if you have any other option (as probably most of HN does).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robertlagrant 3y ago

The point is that we need something to do, to feel useful. Sitting on a beach all day every day would get pretty dull, even if it is a common dream life. I don't think this is particularly cultural. Most people who survived history did so through work so their children lived, or through raising children to be survivors. That's worth considering, instead of just blaming culture.

bluefirebrand 3y ago
I think "we need to feel useful" is absolutely a cultural thing, or at least how we define what "useful" is cultural. Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. In North America our culture strongly believes a person's value is linked to their usefulness. That's not up for debate really. I mean you can try to argue it's not, but honestly look around. Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Don't try and say it's not cultural.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Don't try and say it's not cultural. You seem to have only one counterexample: monks. Why would you assume that their highly unusual replacement of this by devotion to God is the less cultural option?
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Alright, how about Ancient Greek philosophers?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Similarly unusual, no? Compared to the number of people who aren't that? Of course a society that works to survive (which is to say: all of them) can sustain a few people not working. But that's not because they're culturally advanced people in a world of backward thinkers. It's because they were few.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        Twitch streamers and TikTok influencers
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Well, they're actually part of modern culture, so I don't think they can be a counterexample from history :-)
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Ornamental hermits. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734627
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        They were amazing! And considered useful by their land owners.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    Monks are just an example that very plainly demonstrates that a person's "worth" is a cultural determination, not an objective fact of human existence. Do you need me to go and list all of the ways every culture on the planet has different views on the value of an individual? I don't have that kind of time.
- nradov 3y ago
  In the real world we have limited resources. Some societies are wealthy enough to sustain a few freeloaders without causing much trouble, but there are limits. If no one does useful work then we all freeze and starve. It's interesting to look at the social and political divisions that have been growing in Israel over the role of the Haredi (ultra-orthodox). The men are exempt from conscription and mostly don't work for wages. Instead they focus on religious study and survive on welfare and donations. More secular Israelis tend to resent the Haredi as useless lumps who don't do their fair share of work.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. That's begging the question. Historically, nearly all societies valued work because work was necessary; they valued being "useful". Historically, nearly all societies also specialized, moving some folks away from directly producing/ harvesting food and to other jobs like building tools; they also produced art, philosophy, religion, and other things which don't appear to be "useful" but _empirically are_. > Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. > We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. No. WTF, no. Most people who are "unemployed" _were_ employed and _will soon be_ employed. Most people who are homeless had a home and will soon have a home. These are usually short term circumstances. The folks who are long-term unemployed or long-term homeless are a completely different category: lots of substance abuse, mental issues they refuse to treat, refusal to adhere to basic societal norms, etc. But if someone improves themselves, wow, do folks love a comeback story. I think that's almost universal across societies, but I'm happy to see evidence otherwise. As for physically handicapped folks, plenty of them work for money. Some of them can't _but they want to_. And they find other ways to be useful to their families, their community, their society. I don't see disdain for that. But that one is definitely cultural. Historically, most societies would "put them out of their misery". Still true in Canada. > Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" > This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Generally, yes, it does. See everything above.
Vrondi 3y ago
It is absolutely cultural. For example, most Historians believe that while certain times of the year were packed with grueling hard work, the average medieval farm worker had absolute hordes of time off compared to the average modern worker. When the work was done, it was done. You weren't useless if you were relaxing in the down times, even large blocks of down time, and since their culture was based around seasonality, it wasn't looked down upon. Very different from modern corporate work culture, where you must appear to be working all the time, even if there's no work of value to do at a given time, and even if you worked day and night last month on a crunch project. Very much cultural.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  As in...serfs? They also starved to death and got conscripted into wars. They also probably had to work their lord's land before they got to their own, if there was time. Their lives were often terrible. They also just did more. They didn't work to earn money to employ someone to work on their house; they went home and worked on their house. That might look to a simple observer as them working less, but I doubt the serf would see it that way.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    and kings have been beheaded, therefore kings live terrible lives? The existence of something bad happening doesn't refute the point being made.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It would be if pretty much every king would be constantly beheaded, every day.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        oh definitely, because every serf got killed every day...

randomdata 3y ago

A so-called hermit monk may achieve complete solitude, but even most monks will spend some time trading something they have of value with other monks (and possibly beyond). That's all work is. A state of: I can do something for you, and you can do something for me, and we see ourselves as both being better off for it. Sometimes practical constraints means something cannot be delivered immediately, so a party may promise to deliver it later. That is all money and accounting is – a record of the promises made. We're social creatures. I expect most do truly do see life as being empty if they cannot grow with other people. Protestantism may have taken notice of that, but it didn't invent it.

dzikimarian 3y ago

Hello. Probably no single protestant influenced directly how I was raised and I still think, that doing something that you don't care about for 8h a day "because I need money" is tremendous waste of life, if you have any other option (as probably most of HN does).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]