Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, well, see my edit.

[Carl G]

Dan wrote:

I have no intention of allowing a long standing feud between the two of you, played out in this subject matter, to spill into this forum.

Why's that?

Nat brought up the subject. Now everyone but Victor may respond?

I thought this was where one comes when one likes one's thoughts bloodied.

[Dan Rowden]

It's not about that, Carl. You know the history of this. If they keep it from being about them and their personal feud that's fine with me, but they almost never do - or can. I am merely saying I will not allow a personal feud to be played out here. It's tedious beyond redemption.

Of course, neither will admit it gets like that, which is part of the problem. What substance there may be in such a debate always gets lost.

[Unidian]

Don't worry, I have no intention of engaging this childish and repetitive outburst from a known heckler/troll. He is participating in this thread for the sole purpose of attempting to incite the vitriolic conflict on which his ego feeds, and I've played into that whole pathological dynamic one too many times. Besides, this diatribe is no different than ones I've heard repeatedly, often from this very source. At worst, it's no more substantial than the abuse I get on Republican forums and the like. Nothing to get to worked up over for the umpteenth time. Ultimately, some people simply get hysterical thinking that I have their penny. Frankly, far from playing into the old temptation to fight back, I'm learning to love it. Their exaggerated outrage says a great deal about them and is well worth savoring.

But I appreciate your recognizing the trolling and heckling intent, Dan. I think you'd be well within your rights to delete the next outburst. We all know full well that somebody clued him in to an opportunity to troll and heckle, figuring I'd take the bait and there would be yet another rehash of the usual dog and pony show. He has no other interest in being here, and beyond that, I'm hardly disposed to giving whoever summoned him the satisfaction.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, despite the history and motives, I do think it a subject worth attention. Your particular viewpoint is likely to have a more sympathetic audience here than most places. I'm not against the discussion, just a continuation of its history and nature on other boards. I guess I'm just trying to lay down the parameters of a standard I'll accept for it.

[vicdan]

Unidian,

I see you are still afraid to face the epistemic problem with 'philosophy from fear', and the ethical problem with imposing on others an obligation to support you. I am not surprised -- by now you know that you can't possibly defend your position. You can't even face what your position really is, and so you instead simply keep lying to yourself and to others, trying to in vain to turn your weakness and fear into a virtue.

Keep groveling, dude. That is all you can do -- groveling rather than poetry, self-justification rather than philosophy. Unless you change your approach to philosophy, unless you stop using philosophy as a way to justify your own weakness and cowardice, you will never be able to think worth crap. Your fear prevents you from reasoning -- always has, and I suspect always will.

As long as you delude yourself into equating fear of pain with love of wisdom, you will remain just a patently transparent loser* with a self-esteem problem.

* And I don't just mean your living on the dole in a trailer park by this.

[Dan Rowden]

Sometimes I wonder which of you two stupid fuckers wants to be the other the most.

[vicdan]

While not having to work would be nice, I would never want to do this by imposing on others. I would certainly never want to be the sort of person who justifies his weakness through self-deception.

[Dan Rowden]

The idea that working does not pose an imposition on others is an argument to be avoided in any sane discourse of the morality or integrity of work.

[Philosophaster]

Well, looky who dropped by.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, I know I'm going to be sorry for engaging in this thread, but I think Victor is right about Unidian's rationalizations. Take the original post and replace "work" with "tooth brushing" or something and you can see there's no argument there really, just vague rationalizations. Here's point #1:

1. Suffering is a major catalyst for developing an interest in "spiritual" matters. In many cases, those who develop such an interest will be the so-called "losers" of the world who are unable to do well in conventional worldly activities. Often, they will have a mental or physical condition which limits their economic and/or social pursuits, causing them considerable agitation. This suffering will lead them to explore the deeper questions of life. Most people do not get this opportunity because their competence in conventional worldly endeavors is sufficient to ensure that they remain satisfied with them.

Suffering also leads to the desire to avoid suffering and the need to justify the actions you took to avoid it so you can manipulate people into helping you, because you know that if you didn't have help from people you would be screwed.

2. Once a person has begun the process of acquiring philosophical insight, he or she becomes increasingly isolated from the values of the majority. Belief after belief is discovered to be without substance. Eventually, for many, there comes a point at which the conventional motivations underlying employment become insufficiently forceful to keep a person at work. In some cases, thinkers may need to remain unemployed beyond this point due to urgent commitments or circumstances. For many, however, this is quitting time. A thinker simply has better things to do than a job. He has uses for his time that are more consistent with his values, such as thinking, reading, playing, or simply "doing nothing."

Or this could occur the exact opposite way. You quit your job because you don't feel like working and then spend your time legitimizing it with some high-falutin' philosophy.

With a few exceptions, I have become increasingly hesitant to take seriously any philosophical commentary by people who have jobs. Circumstances vary, but in many cases, their having jobs is a plain and obvious sign that their "spiritual" development is in some sense less than my own and therefore I need not pay much attention.

That's because they're probably trying to get you to get a job, which you've already decided that you don't want to do. It's just like a Christian who doesn't want to look outside the Bible for insight. I don't see any difference there.

I also think that if one were charged with the task of finding the more highly developed thinkers of the world, a list of disability recipients might be very helpful. Don't get me wrong - certainly not all or even a large fraction of the unemployed are substantial thinkers. Most are like anyone else. But if one needs to judge the relative development of an otherwise superfically similar group, the employment criteria could be very useful in separating the men from the boys (reversal of popular views intended).

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of those people don't want to work as well. That's true, some of them might want to work but might not be able to actually find a job, but I'm sure most of them just don't want to work.

To some, it will seem as if I must be joking about much or all of this. But I'm not, and certain others will recognize the truth of it immediately. Chances are, those who do will have long since become permanently unemployed, or at least had a period of long-term unemployment.

Right, I'm sure that the people who don't want to work will see it immediately because it helps to give their excuses further credibility, knowing that others are using the same excuses, or perhaps they'll learn new techniques of bullshitting.

I do believe it is theroretically possible to return to work after having given it up for philosophical reasons, but that is another matter for another thread, and I don't think it could happen without putting in a good number of years away from employment first.

What, did you throw this in at the end because realized that some of your friends have jobs or something?

Now I'm not really into work, either, but at least get some good arguments together or something. I'm sorry, but these are terrible. I mean, you're just giving us nothing here. It looks to me like you're defining "spirituality" as "not working" or "rationalizing not working" which is hardly useful to anyone but yourself, so you can't really expect much sympathy from others. If you want to persuade people, you're going to have to explain what they have to gain from all this, because supporting your ass is a burden, not a benefit. People generally want a return on their investments.

[DHodges]

You choose to believe that others owe you a living -- that if you were stuck in a forest with a good hunter, for example, he would be morally obligated to support you while you lazed about by the fire -- because you are too weak and cowardly even to accept and admit your own weakness and cowardice; and so you resort to a tried-and-true technique -- building grand rhetorical edifices to conceal your ethical corruption.

I thought it was Unidian that was arguing that a while back, but I couldn't find the thread.

Frankly, far from playing into the old temptation to fight back, I'm learning to love it. Their exaggerated outrage says a great deal about them and is well worth savoring.

There you have it. Unidian is trolling. Nothing further need be said on this topic, I think.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would certainly never want to be the sort of person who justifies his weakness through self-deception.

How funny! What a wonderful projection, so "pur sang".

Because to be human means to successfully cope (justify, function) with all weaknesses and suffering that is life through the art of self-deception. A pure philosopher becomes just more aware of how this works, damaging this particular instinct and causing at times a problem when forced to engage in such deceptions for survival. What to do? What to do? He engages in the lesser deception of course.

[vicdan]

Diebert,

Because to be human means to successfully cope (justify, function) with all weaknesses and suffering that is life through the art of self-deception.

You are only half-right. Yes, we need to cope; but coping through self-deception is just one way, though apparently your path of choice. You can also cope by accepting the falsehood of your previous self-image and by adjusting how you see yourself; or by actually managing your weaknesses, perhaps even excising some of them; or by being very clever about how you adopt them to the environment; etc.

Better self-deception, more transparent and thus more contented self-deception, is the solution of myopic fools who like to claim the mantle of philosophy because is sounds better than calling one's self a deluded fool, a conman who cons only himself.

A pure philosopher becomes just more aware of how this works

This is relevant only if he is the sort of 'philosopher' who turned to philosophy to improve his ability to deceive himself, as Unidian has.

[Unidian]

1. Vickie is on ignore, so I haven't seen any of his latest, not that I need to to. One can imagine they contain the typical vitriol, which I've seen so many times by now that it's frankly quite boring.

2. To address these other points:

Suffering also leads to the desire to avoid suffering and the need to justify the actions you took to avoid it so you can manipulate people into helping you, because you know that if you didn't have help from people you would be screwed.

I don't have to "manipulate" anyone. If I had to get help from people directly, I would be screwed no matter what, because most people agree with your view. This is why private charity has always been insufficient to address social problems. Luckily, I don't have to ask the general populace for anything. A system exists which wisely recognizes that citizens are not to have a choice in the matter. It's one of the big advantages of representative democracy. If people who share your view had a direct say in matters of fiscal policy, the number of starving and homeless would grow exponentially.

Or this could occur the exact opposite way. You quit your job because you don't feel like working and then spend your time legitimizing it with some high-falutin' philosophy.

Yep, it could occur that way, but you have no reason to believe it did, except an assumption based on your newfound disdain for me because you have to go to work and I don't. My "high-falutin philosophy" is the same as that of QRS regarding this matter. Everything was okay until you found out I have your nickel, right?

Instead of attacking me, why don't you focus on summoning up enough backbone to live your values and quit your job? Isn't that really what this is about? Resentment because I'm doing what you can't?

Right, I'm sure that the people who don't want to work will see it immediately because it helps to give their excuses further credibility, knowing that others are using the same excuses, or perhaps they'll learn new techniques of bullshitting.

How about new techniques for bullshitting yourself? You don't want to work. I know you don't want to work. But you're enslaved to something, so you keep working, right? Resentement toward free men is the natural result. I see it all the time.

Now I'm not really into work, either, but at least get some good arguments together or something.

Okay, try this. Chock-full of arguments that make no reference to spiritual development.

And if you're not into work, you shouldn't be working. I'm not into hitting myself in the shins with a bat, so I just don't do it. It would be rather strange if I spent 8 hours a day beating myself with a bat despite having no interest in doing so, eh?

Those who don't want to work but do so anyway are among the most tragic of all God's creatures. It is for their eventual liberation that I and others say these things, despite knowing we will take tons of abuse from the very people we are trying to help. But that's nothing new.

I mean, you're just giving us nothing here. It looks to me like you're defining "spirituality" as "not working" or "rationalizing not working" which is hardly useful to anyone but yourself, so you can't really expect much sympathy from others.

Nah, the definition of spirituality has nothing to do with employment status. Being unemployed does promote spiritual development in those so inclined, however. Certain types of employment could also do so in different circumstances, but since nobody would ever dream of arguing against that (employment being sacrosanct), I tend to focus on the issue that raises dispute.

If you want to persuade people, you're going to have to explain what they have to gain from all this, because supporting your ass is a burden, not a benefit. People generally want a return on their investments.

Most people have nothing to gain other than the knowledge that they agree with the idea "allowing anyone to be without access to the necessities of life is a bad and immoral thing." If you are not interested in being able to say that, then you have nothing to gain and should perhaps consider moving to a nation where no tax receipts are used for social welfare. I hear El Salvador is nice this time of year...

Come on, don't let Vickie push you around intellectually. He joins a thread and suddenly people climb out of the woodwork to jump on the bandwagon, which is quite embarrassing for those who do it, whether they realize it or not. Clearly they don't have the fortitude to say anything before he shows up, but after he appears, they line up to see which of them can most closely imitate his tone. I'm sure you're capable of more than that. It belittles you.

[Philosophaster]

So, was it Elizabeth or Sher?

Or maybe it was Matt Gregory.

Or maybe Vic just happened to drop by as this topic was being brought up.

[Unidian]

There you have it. Unidian is trolling. Nothing further need be said on this topic, I think.

Oh, I'm trolling?

LOL, that's priceless.

I'd be more annoyed at the absolute reversal of reality implied in that statement, but there's absolutely zero chance that management (Dan) will take it seriously.

[vicdan]

unidian,

And if you're not into work, you shouldn't be working.

You are also not into living in a trailer and scraping by on a disability check each month, so you doing that indicates a lack of cojones and philosophical integrity on your part, right?..

As I said, your weakness and fear prevent you from actually reasoning, else you would have seen how this line of defense is self-negating -- because various 'not into...' preferences are often mutually exclusive, and no person can reconcile them all.

[Philosophaster]

Tired of peddling the same old psychoanalysis yet?

[daybrown]

Weakness is not always what it appears to be. DNA reveals that whites descended from yeoman farmer village of 150-300 over the course of the last 10,000 years. The witches did what we now call 'case management' raising the kids of incompetent parents to maximize the diversity in small gene pools. the kids mite hand down the markers for resistance to cholera, dysentery, tetnus, plague, or whatever.

Without that, the mighty hunter is just dead meat. So- the Liberal instinct to care for others was needed to maximize genetic diversity, and just like philandry and wontonness, which existed for the same reason, are still with us. A community that was only made up of people who only served their own interest would not be sustainable. In earlier times, it needed the wimpy geek in the corner who did nothing but whack flint and obsidian into the best arrowheads.

Now, what is that service worth? The warrior class which has the physical strength to intimidate everyone will denigrate it, and have the geek spend more of his time making points while they spend more of their time fucking the women. From a purely Libertarian Capitalist social model, this makes perfect sense. There's no reason to reward the ugly bastard... from the standpoint of *this* generation. The problem only shows up with the next, who dont have any sons of the geek to inherit the talent, thus dont have as good weapons, and get wiped out by the tribe that was liberal enuf to ensure more diversity in the local talent pool.

But both Machiavelli and Aristotle understood how liberality could create what we now call a 'welfare class'. And since now we are able to train robots faster than we can train the slow witted and ignorant, the unemployment among them grows. It is only going to get worse as the software to program the robots evolves faster than the teaching methods. If we effectively banned and exported illegals, by harvest season next year, there'd be robots in the orchards with pattern recognition software picking the ripe fruit.

Course, there'd still be jobs for the service techs. But in time, they'd be replaced with automated equipment as well to go into the orchards to retreive defective units and leave a replacement while the other is either sent back to the factory, where other robots will repair it, or sent to the recycling where robots will disassemble it. In time, they will get to your job. 50 years ago, Sci Fi thot robots in be in place already; but like curing cancer, has had unexpected difficulties. But like cancer, they are getting a handle on it, and it wont be another 50 years.

Basically, capitalism is like a Casino, with just enuf winners to keep the losers in the game. And like a Casino, after its been in business a while and built up a following, it reduces the number of winners while increasing the advertising behind each. But eventually, that reaches a level of diminishing returns, losers start giving up on the game, and without them, the cost of management being so high, the whole place goes into bankruptcy.

We've reached a kind of Hubbard's Peak in promoting winners; Youtube and the net are creating other games with lower operating costs that the losers can afford to play longer. Wicca, astrology, Tarot, I Ching, etc are all indicators that people think the game is rigged. Everyone knows Murphy's laws are true, and only the rich get to do it on the cheap. Some who are neither ideologically capitalist nor socialist, see the reductio absurdum of going either way, and trying to use the net to design new games with a more even playing field.

Our ancestral villages operated in regional free markets, but each village also took care of its own. The trick now is to reach an evaluation of what a neovillage can afford to take care of, and still have the R&D investment to compete in the global market.

[Unidian]

Tired of peddling the same old psychoanalysis yet?

Hehe, I figured that's what it was. It always is.

But you can always check out GF's iggy function, which is actually quite cool. This board has a lot of features that EZboard should have implemented years ago.

Oh, and BTW, someone just informed me that one of Herr Wankenfuhrer's posts claims that I live in a "trailer park." That is incorrect. We own our own land. But I'm sure his bigoted and self-congratulating Randian disdain for the poor is once again noted. What's next? Will he further reveal his Calvinist view that financial status refelects character by bragging about his car or his entertainment system, or saying that my CD player is the Wal-Mart brand? LOL.

[Unidian]

daybrown: Interesting post. You raise some points that merit further though, and I thank you for that.

[Philosophaster]

That sort of accusation routinely gets leveled at philosophers as a whole, too.

"They're too frightened by the real work of science and math, too afraid of having to think in a precise way that gets tangible results, so they lose themselves in vague abstractions and concoct self-justifying stories about how philosophy is superior and science and math "depend" on philosophy."

[vicdan]

Unidian,

Ah, dude, you are still unable to actually address the problems pervading your view. i didn't expect anything different. All you can do is paint me a republican pig (even though I am a registered Green).

[Philosophaster]

The "criticism" was just an accusation that he clings to philosophy to prop up his self-esteem and salve his fear of failure. Not really much there to "address."