Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[Imadrongo]

Neil, you are doing a very poor job at justifying the value of labour. Idleness does not need to be rationalized if labour has no value, or if labour is counter-productive.

Neither of them have any intrinsic value.

You have yet to offer evidence that there is any labour other than agriculture that a person can do without needing strong justification as to its value.

How is agriculture exempt from this strong justification? It is just another way to survive.

I can so easily imagine that someone like Unidian, who abstains from labour, is more capable of doing philosophy than someone who works all the time at a trivial job, that I am willing to grant him the general rule that idleness is necessary for philosophic integrity.

This is just another way to survive used by a different type of person.... No need to glorify it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

Neither of them have any intrinsic value.

So, at this point all the postmodern social Darwinistic cells in your brain are screaming: "take evasive action!"

How is agriculture exempt from this strong justification? It is just another way to survive.

It builds civilization. A disconnect from agriculture leads directly to the collapse of civilization, and thus also leads directly to the destruction of wisdom.

I know you don't value food, since you've already explicitly said that you would like it if the developing world overpopulated itself and then all of them starved to death, but I see starving people as a problem.

This is just another way to survive used by a different type of person.... No need to glorify it.

If you think that philosophy is glorious, then it is you who is glorifying idleness. I made no claims as to the glory of philosophy, only that idleness is necessary to any success with it.

Personally, I think if I took all my knowledge and wisdom and actually used it in the single wisest way imaginable -- and thus became a humble farmer in the developing world -- I would be doing something far more glorious than philosophy.

[Imadrongo]

So, at this point all the postmodern social Darwinistic cells in your brain are screaming: "take evasive action!"

No?

How is agriculture exempt from this strong justification? It is just another way to survive.

It builds civilization. A disconnect from agriculture leads directly to the collapse of civilization, and thus also leads directly to the destruction of wisdom.

There are other sources of food. And everyone doesn't need to be a farmer for society to survive. Why not let others farm and steal from them or beg or take X job and buy food?

I know you don't value food, since you've already explicitly said that you would like it if the developing world overpopulated itself and then all of them starved to death, but I see starving people as a problem.

I value food. It keeps me going and growing. What does this have to do with feeding the starving world? The more food they have the more competition for food is against me.

I made no claims as to the glory of philosophy, only that idleness is necessary to any success with it.

I think you are just trying to rationalize idleness. "I am idle. I like philosophy. Therefore philosophy is absolute good and idleness is necessity that only the strongest people, like myself, can do."

Personally, I think if I took all my knowledge and wisdom and actually used it in the single wisest way imaginable -- and thus became a humble farmer in the developing world -- I would be doing something far more glorious than philosophy.

At least you would have no fears, worries, joys, sufferings... responsibilities. Wouldn't this be glorious?! All you would need to do is farm enough to feed yourself and idle around in blissful religious high for the rest of your life.

[Unidian]

LOL. Neil thinks philosophical integrity is about "blissful religious high."

Don't I wish. It's not, though. More like the opposite, actually. If it were about "blissful religious high," everybody would do it. Instead, everybody runs from it, mocks it, and ignores it. The reason for that is its tendency to strip a person of every psychological coping mechanism. All the comforting delusions evaporate. That's not "blissful religious high."

It's not Neil's fault he thinks this way, though. The perception is created by all of the two-bit "gurus" who tell people what they want to hear while raiding their wallets.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil,

There are other sources of food.

Food sources that don't come from agriculture? You mean, fast food?

Why not let others farm and steal from them or beg or take X job and buy food?

The point is that farming is necessary to civilization; these other jobs are not. They are built on top of farming -- either by stealing or by begging -- and the farther away from the farm they get, the less likely they have any bearing on reality. At a certain point -- and it's not very far from the farm when you reach this point -- these jobs are nothing more than endless games of make-believe.

What does this have to do with feeding the starving world? The more food they have the more competition for food is against me.

Uhh... no. If the developing world had modern farms, there would be no competition against you. You might as well be saying "the more farms there are in France, the more competition there is for food against me." It's pure lunacy. You would not suffer at all if the developing world was developed.

I think you are just trying to rationalize idleness.

Not at all. All great philosophers were idle. Some, like Bertrand Russel, wrote books praising idleness. Others, like Diogenes and Buddha, lived lives that loudly proclaimed the virtue of idleness. Even great non-philosophic minds like Darwin and Newton required the fact that they were part of the idle rich to perform their experiments.

I am not rationalizing; rather, I am relating a fact. Idleness is necessary to any skill in philosophy.

Since you are both not part of the idle class and not a very good philosopher, you are incapable of judging whether ot not this fact is true.

All you would need to do is farm enough to feed yourself and idle around in blissful religious high for the rest of your life.

Farming in the developing world is not "farming enough to feed [myself]." It is farming for people who need the food in close enough proximity to them that I can be certain they are benefitting from my efforts. It is also going to require several years of preparation to be certain that I have the knowledge to do this.

As Unidian already pointed out, philosophy does not lead to "blissful religious highs". Enlightenment, for instance, is not pleasure.

In the best case scenario, philosophy helps a person tell true from false so they can determine what is the best thing for them to do: usually the best thing is an unavoidable obligation that only someone well-steeled in the fine art of thinking is capable of doing. It is unavoidable because not only can nobody else do it, nobody else wants to do it... and it has to get done. I highly doubt that Diogenes, for instance, experienced blissful highs while he sat in his barrel his whole life. But he had some very important things to say about hard work (it took a lot of hard work for him to live in a barrel, for instance) that only he -- the hardest working man in all of Greece -- was able to say.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

NM: There are other sources of food.

TS: Food sources that don't come from agriculture? You mean, fast food?

How about wild plants, mushrooms, fish, mammals, etc? Agriculture is growing the food, but you could become a grazer or a hunter.

NM: Why not let others farm and steal from them or beg or take X job and buy food?

TS: The point is that farming is necessary to civilization; these other jobs are not. They are built on top of farming -- either by stealing or by begging -- and the farther away from the farm they get, the less likely they have any bearing on reality.

Oh man wtf are you talking about now? First you wanted to be a farmer for mobility and now farming is closer to reality than any other job? Did you take your meds today?

NM: What does this have to do with feeding the starving world? The more food they have the more competition for food is against me.

TS: Uhh... no. If the developing world had modern farms, there would be no competition against you. You might as well be saying "the more farms there are in France, the more competition there is for food against me." It's pure lunacy. You would not suffer at all if the developing world was developed.

Rofl. The planet only supports a limited amount of farms. We are already in the deficit on our energy budget. I think you have a fairytale conception of farming. Is this your romanticism coming out? Do you realize that farming is a hard labor that you are probably not at all fit for, either physically or mentally?

NM: I think you are just trying to rationalize idleness.

TS: Not at all. All great philosophers were idle.

No, they were fully engaged in philosophy.

TS: I am not rationalizing; rather, I am relating a fact. Idleness is necessary to any skill in philosophy.

Nothing is "necessary" to "skill in philosophy".

NM: All you would need to do is farm enough to feed yourself and idle around in blissful religious high for the rest of your life.

TS: Farming in the developing world is not "farming enough to feed [myself]." It is farming for people who need the food in close enough proximity to them that I can be certain they are benefitting from my efforts.

Oh right -- Trevor is still hooked on morality which has been dying for several centuries now. Some philosopher. :) This sounds very close to what the Christians would call Missionary -- Trevor wants to go over to Ethiopia and spread the "Absolute truth" to all the poor and decrepit over there to win some support ("survival of wisdom").

TS: As Unidian already pointed out, philosophy does not lead to "blissful religious highs". Enlightenment, for instance, is not pleasure.

Perhaps it isn't. It is an escape from pain though. And I'm not convinced you don't get some high off of being enlightened whereas everyone else is "deluded" and inferior (yes, I know you find this extremely unfortunate and that the truth hurts you).

[Unidian]

Nothing is "necessary" to "skill in philosophy".

Indeed, this is a very common sentiment. I've heard it countless times myself from multiple sources. For some reason (which will be revealed later), many people are convinced that philosophy is the only activity on Earth which anyone can do with equal skill regardless of qualification. It is as if they were insisting that an Olympic athlete who has trained for a decade and somebody who just got off the couch ten minutes ago can run the 100 yard dash with equal speed.

Since this is obviously ludicrous, why do people believe it? The answer, of course, is the ego. People are naturally very resistant to the idea that anyone is better-equipped to think more effectively and skillfully than they can. We don't mind that Jeff Gordon is a better racecar driver than we are, Charles Lindbergh a better pilot, or Bill Gates a better software engineer, because we don't think any of these activities are relevant to our self-image. But the basic ability to think is relevant to everyone's self-image, so most of us are hesitant to admit to ourselves that even luminaries such as Socrates and Plato were more skilled at it than we are. We might tell ourselves that they were more "interested" in thinking or more "dedicated" to it - but certainly not better at it in an absolute sense. Our ideas are just as valid as theirs. This form of rationalization is the ego at work in its plainest form.

The idea that anyone can do philosophy with equal skill and that nothing is required to do so is an extension of this. It's a very popular idea which has contributed to the near-complete devaluation of philosophical thought in modern society. If everybody can already think with the skill and depth of Socrates, what could possibly be the point of an activity (philosophy) which is supposed to develop such skill and depth? Under this view, those who pursue philosophy would deserve every bit of ridicule and dismissal directed at them. But this view, of course, is utter rubbish.

In summary, there are few more blatantly egotistical than those who scoff at people who pursue skill in thinking without having done so themselves.

[Unidian]

The above was a generalized reply. Since I had only one sentence to go on, I can't be sure Neil was trying to make the point I responded to. But many people do take the perspective I described.

To address a couple of other points:

Perhaps it isn't. It [philosophy] is an escape from pain though.

Wanna bet? I understand that it is difficult for many people to conceive of others intentionally doing things for any other reason than to obtain pleasure or escape pain. It is possible, however. Philosophy in its highest form is essentially self-sacrifice for the sake of truth. History as well as personal experience will show that the serious thinker cannot reasonable expect pleasant treatment from the conventional world. Philosophy has ruined my own life in many regards, and that is not an escape from pain but rather a willingness to bear increasing amounts of it. History shows a similar pattern in many diverse cases.

And I'm not convinced you don't get some high off of being enlightened whereas everyone else is "deluded" and inferior (yes, I know you find this extremely unfortunate and that the truth hurts you).

The truth does hurt, but not in the way you imagine. The realization that one has some insight and others have considerably less is not in any sense a "high," pleasurable, or empowering feeling. In fact, it is often a very depressing feeling which leads one to envision himself as "below" or "inferior to" the majority. Unfortunately, in order to understand why this is so, you would need to have a considerable amount of insight. That being the case, I don't expect you to simply take my word for it. I'm just pointing it out for the sake of those who can relate. But one thing which might help is to remember that it is those who are "deluded" who drive the nice cars, live in the fancy houses, and spend their lives engrossed in merriment without a second thought. If you imagine that philosophical types see this and are inspired to get "high" on a self-aggrandizing trip as a result, you are mistaken. Perhaps some might do that, but they are simply crazy.

But again, to your ears, the above is simply going to sound like garden-variety jealousy or something similar. It isn't, but unless you are in our position, you can't understand why. And you can't be expected to take my word for it, so please carry on with the dismissive replies. I understand that no other approach is possible.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Unidian speaks for me. The only thing I need to mention is a little something about Ethiopia: freedom of speech is not tolerated there to the same degree it is tolerated in Canada. Spreading truth is not advised -- I have no intention to proselytize. Until I am familiar with the laws of the country, I may not even keep a journal.

Since I have a friend with relatives in Ethiopia, I can get there the modern way: through immigration. And, if I am to survive, I won't have a safety net like I've been lucky enough to lay in for the last few years, like in Canada. I will have to make a living, and I'd prefer to do that through agriculture.

[Carl G]

Being out of the hubbub of the world of commerce can be beneficial for some. Monasteries, other communal lifestyles, as well as personal hermitry are founded with this idea in mind. But it is not for everyone (who seeks truth).

Definitely work of some kind is a good mill wheel on which to grind one's spiritual/philosophical grist. The workaday world itself is an excellent classroom for self-examination, if one is strong enough to not lose oneself in it. Indeed business can be made a spiritual game, and even art, made sharper by the need to protect oneself constantly from all the vagaries of ordinariness -- the oafs and oafish situations one can find oneself in. Life tests intensely in these experiences.

And there are all sorts of middle grounds. The world of academia is somewhat sheltered from commercial stresses, for instance. And agriculture can be even more removed; out there on a tractor plowing the back 400 gives one a lot of time to think; believe me, I've done it.

I don't think there is any right or wrong to this. It is a matter of type and temperament.

[Imadrongo]

Unidian,

In summary, there are few more blatantly egotistical than those who scoff at people who pursue skill in thinking without having done so themselves.

I was mainly responding to Trevor's comment that idleness is a "skill" that is necessary for philosophy. I think anyone could do philosophy, they just need to switch into thinking mode. This usually requires some suffering and events that lead to desire to understand things. People who fit right in with the rest of society usually don't have much interest in philosophy because they don't have the hole in their life that they want to patch that leads others to philosophy.

I wouldn't call idleness a "skill" first of all. Second I don't think philosophers should be idle. I think they are very active towards certain ends. Perhaps they have no time for making income and living in a house and social events. But embracing asceticism for the sake of it because one's favorite philosophers live like ascetics is rubbish.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, nobody has called idleness a skill, least of all me. Why did you put quotations around the word and say that I said such?

Idleness is a life situation that is necessary for philosophy: only if it is intentional might it indicate a skill. Unidian has suggested that most people of philosophic skill are idle, not that most people of idle skill are philosophic.

[Unidian]

What Trevor said. It would be pretty silly to call idelness a skill. Rather, idleness is a possible (or perhaps likely) result of skilled thinking.

But Carl raised some good points as well. It isn't a black and white matter, there are some differences of temperament and circumstances. I certainly don't see it as being impossible to work and think. But for the philosophical type, thinking comes first, and I can't be convinced that someone who has been attending a job faithfully all their lives has placed thinking first. At least show me a few years of unemployment. :p

[Shardrol]

Unidian

I'm not understanding why you make such a big deal out of the employment / unemployment issue, to the point of calling unemployment 'the best indicator of integrity'. What about the living alone / living with others issue, or the single / partnered issue? Living with other people on a daily basis, & especially being involved in a romantic partnership could be viewed as just as much of an impediment to fulltime thinking as having a job, certainly. Your point seems a bit self-serving, seeing as how you don't have a job but you do have a partner.

[Dave Toast]

Good philosophy isn't just thinking. It's not performed in a vacuum. A good philosopher lives according to their philosophical discoveries, otherwise it's just academic.

The most basic ethic - the minimum requirement of averting hypocrisy - is the golden rule. As such, one would expect any philosopher worth the name to understand it and live according to it.

Relying on others for one's sustenance, whilst not returning in kind, violates the golden rule.

Would that all were good philosophers. Everyone could beg from each other. And recieve plentiful wisdom for their dinner plate.

[Unidian]

Shardrol,

I'm not understanding why you make such a big deal out of the employment / unemployment issue, to the point of calling unemployment 'the best indicator of integrity'. What about the living alone / living with others issue, or the single / partnered issue? Living with other people on a daily basis, & especially being involved in a romantic partnership could be viewed as just as much of an impediment to fulltime thinking as having a job, certainly. Your point seems a bit self-serving, seeing as how you don't have a job but you do have a partner.

It's an issue that is important to me given my life circumstances and perspective. I believe that thinkers are best suited to address the issues of personal importance to them. Each of us has some defining factor in our lives that stands above other issues in our own experience. I see nothing wrong with focusing on these.

Dave Toast,

Good philosophy isn't just thinking. It's not performed in a vacuum. A good philosopher lives according to their philosophical discoveries, otherwise it's just academic.

Absolutely. This is a very good reason for some thinkers to avoid employment.

The most basic ethic - the minimum requirement of averting hypocrisy - is the golden rule. As such, one would expect any philosopher worth the name to understand it and live according to it.

Relying on others for one's sustenance, whilst not returning in kind, violates the golden rule.

I don't know who this could be referring to, since I return in kind far above the value of the pittance I take. You are reading a small portion of my contribution right now. My guess is that you probably don't value it, but that doesn't mean it has no value to others.

Would that all were a good philosophers. Everyone could beg from each other. And recieve plentiful wisdom for their dinner plate.

There is no danger of everyone taking up philosophy.

[Dave Toast]

Well you're ok then. But I don't remember suggesting that post was aimed at anyone.

The logic of what I said is piss simple. It doesn't need to be defended as it's bullet proof. It's not going anywhere, no matter what rationales or sophistry may be thrown at it. If someone can honestly reconcile themselves with its conclusions, it presents no ethical problem to them.

[Unidian]

OK. For the record, I started this topic partially to be provocative and drum up some discussion, since the board I used to post at recently closed and nothing is going on anywhere else. So my posts here are written a bit more boldly than they might be otherwise.

I think I'm going to try to find some activity elsewhere, though. Thanks for your perspective.

[Philosophaster]

Well you're ok then. But I don't remember suggesting that post was aimed at anyone.

The logic of what I said is piss simple. It doesn't need to be defended as it's bullet proof. It's not going anywhere, no matter what rationales or sophistry may be thrown at it. If someone can honestly reconcile themselves with its conclusions, it presents no ethical problem to them.

The way you apply the golden rule depends a lot on interpretation. Consider the statement in this, more narrow, light:

You want to be a doctor. If everyone else were a doctor, too, then the whole world would starve because nobody would be a farmer or hunter!

There you go, an airtight argument against being a doctor, "using" the golden rule.

:-P

Why does your interpretation take precedence over that one? :-)

[Dan Rowden]

The reason that unemployment might be an indicator of a person's level of integrity is not that work or employment are inherently bad, but rather that the values and ideology underpinning almost all of it in this society are deluded and sometimes deeply insane.

[Dave Toast]

Well you're ok then. But I don't remember suggesting that post was aimed at anyone.

The logic of what I said is piss simple. It doesn't need to be defended as it's bullet proof. It's not going anywhere, no matter what rationales or sophistry may be thrown at it. If someone can honestly reconcile themselves with its conclusions, it presents no ethical problem to them.

The way you apply the golden rule depends a lot on interpretation. Consider the statement in this, more narrow, light:

You want to be a doctor. If everyone else were a doctor, too, then the whole world would starve because nobody would be a farmer or hunter!

There you go, an airtight argument against being a doctor, "using" the golden rule.

:-P

Why does your interpretation take precedence over that one? :-)

Are you sure you want me to answer that?

My answer would probably contrast the relative worth of a pertinent example, that of the relative pay-your-own-wayability of being a doctor in contrast to being an unemployed philosopher.

Of course, that's not really the point though. The conclusion has nothing to do with whatever it is that one does. They are just case studies of the conclusion. The conclusion simply concerns paying your own way.

[Unidian]

Why is "paying your own way" so important?

Could it be that the importance placed on such an idea has more to do with cultural indoctrination than with reasoned analysis? I do know that "paying your own way" is much-vaunted and held sacrosanct by conventional types worldwide. Among the NASCAR crowd, it is exceedingly well-understood that no "freeloading" is to be allowed. While this does not necessarily mean it is wrong, it should be a huge red flag at minimum, indicating that thinking people should exercise caution. Aside from the fact that you've always been told it "is what good people do," why is it important to pay one's own way? Certainly someone has to pay, but why does each and every person have to bear the burden? What obligation is one born with requiring it?

What, in principle, is wrong with a society in which those well-suited to economic activity pay to support those who are not, assuming that those engaged in economic activity have access to greater economic rewards?

[Dan Rowden]

The manner in which one is expected to "pay one's way" - i.e. be of some value to the society that in some sense afford us our lifestyle - is a culturally diverse thing. In some cultures that we arrogantly deem less sophisticated or "developed" than our own, certain members of society are valued for their symbolic status alone. One is entitled to question the stated values of modern western society concerning truth and reason and the dedication thereto when people living those values to their fullest and most complete expression are told they are bludging, indolent moochers rather than effective symbols of said virtues.

I mean, go figure :/

[edit: thank God Samadhim doesn't post here, I know what he'd say about this post!]

[Unidian]

What he would say is what several people are probably thinking. We are products of our culture, and we don't get away from that without putting a lot into it.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, that's part of the problem isn't it? Our culture does see us as products. Unfortunately it is the worst aspects of that culture that dominate. And what Sam would actually say is that I was whining. You know the drill.