4 ms·

> Working is a means to an end, survival. Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told m

by slirpee 11y ago

> Working is a means to an end, survival. Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told my only reason to do work I don't like, is so I can keep experiencing a life I don't like. (But, I am apparently still here because I don't entirely dislike it, and/or have hope it will get better.) I do recognize being upset about this may be seen as childish, naive, or entitled, but... > There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system. I think you're missing the point, or at least something I think about. We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? You "did your time", so every other human after you should have to as well? I don't know what the point of progress as a society is, if it does not result in improving the happiness of the people. Now, if you want to argue that unpleasant but necessary work actually improves happiness, or that people need to find their own happiness through spiritualism/religion etc., I could see some merit. But I'm reading basically "Life will always be shitty, shut up and get back to work so you can survive another day of your shitty life." Which seems like pointless, soul-crushing, circular logic I'm not willing to accept. Which again, may be naivety/depression on my part.

Ntrails 11y ago
We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. Mainly because the alternative is considered worse (the fact that considering otherwise is often brushed off as mental illness indicates how embedded this attitude is). Your initial assumption seems to be that life is about being happy, and the only things you do should make you happy. I question where that came from? If reality isn't soul crushing[1], well, you and I see a different reality. Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. I'm unwilling to accept statements of "the world will magically become a place of fairy tales where no one goes hungry, everyone enjoys their days, and life is fair." I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". I don't think depression plays a part, I don't even think it's naivety per se. It's an attitude thing really, I'm pretty bleak. However, I believe my position to be consistent with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be. If wishes were wings and all that... [1] No statements of souls being a real thing was meant.
- slirpee 11y ago
  > There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. "Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed. So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why? > Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"? > I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    No, I don't believe in a God/Purpose/etc. If you do, and take from that a greater meaning, then it's a good thing! I'd question why such a being would leave humanity to spend thousands of years in suffering before reaching the general happiness part - but I'm glib. Death is not worse than struggling to survive imo and death can be a perfectly rational choice, I simply choose to go on because of family and a sense of responsibility for their pain. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"? I don't argue against change. I don't impede action. Occasionally I giveto/support both. I think that when your expectations of what life really is are unrealistic then you're doomed to be unhappy. I think that's the reason religion focusses on rewards in another life that is un-knowable, because that does not result in unhappiness in the short term due to being "short changed" (and indeed improves the acceptance of current lot in life). This is all perspective, it's all my point of view. I'm no great/deep thinker - and I don't claim mine is the only way. I do like discussion though :)

by slirpee 11y ago

Ntrails 11y ago

We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. Mainly because the alternative is considered worse (the fact that considering otherwise is often brushed off as mental illness indicates how embedded this attitude is). Your initial assumption seems to be that life is about being happy, and the only things you do should make you happy. I question where that came from? If reality isn't soul crushing[1], well, you and I see a different reality. Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. I'm unwilling to accept statements of "the world will magically become a place of fairy tales where no one goes hungry, everyone enjoys their days, and life is fair." I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". I don't think depression plays a part, I don't even think it's naivety per se. It's an attitude thing really, I'm pretty bleak. However, I believe my position to be consistent with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be. If wishes were wings and all that... [1] No statements of souls being a real thing was meant.

slirpee 11y ago
> There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. "Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed. So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why? > Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"? > I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?
- Ntrails 11y ago
  No, I don't believe in a God/Purpose/etc. If you do, and take from that a greater meaning, then it's a good thing! I'd question why such a being would leave humanity to spend thousands of years in suffering before reaching the general happiness part - but I'm glib. Death is not worse than struggling to survive imo and death can be a perfectly rational choice, I simply choose to go on because of family and a sense of responsibility for their pain. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"? I don't argue against change. I don't impede action. Occasionally I giveto/support both. I think that when your expectations of what life really is are unrealistic then you're doomed to be unhappy. I think that's the reason religion focusses on rewards in another life that is un-knowable, because that does not result in unhappiness in the short term due to being "short changed" (and indeed improves the acceptance of current lot in life). This is all perspective, it's all my point of view. I'm no great/deep thinker - and I don't claim mine is the only way. I do like discussion though :)