PhD...Ehh

[Minuend]

I agree with proxy.

Every once in a while we need to roll up our sleeves and do shit we don't want to. It doesn't matter what kind of individual we are talking about as long as it's healthy. In fact, I would think the ability to enter one's mind and get energized by thinking would make repetitive tasks much more tolerable as one can spend the entire day thinking.

I've had various "sensing" friends throughout the years, and they don't like repetitive tasks either. It's not about liking stuff, it's about taking responsibility and make an effort. In some cases, making the best out of what one got. Attitude matters a lot in regard to how one likes one's work.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Every once in a while we need to roll up our sleeves and do shit we don't want to.

This misses the point.

• One of the main issues was the "lack of suitable potential careers." Given the nature of this issue, therefore, it doesn't seem to make much sense to just say, "Every once in a while, we just have to suck it up," because careers are a matter of continuous longevity and routine -- not sporadic variance. So clearly, the real issue is much larger and deserves more than a simple, not very relevant statement about doing unpleasant work simply every now and then.
  
  
• Even if we do consider the reality of generally doing unpleasant things in life from time to time (a rather broad notion to which I do not recall anyone objecting), there's still a problem. Certainly one example of "doing unpleasant things" is working various low-level jobs prior to the attainment of a suitable career (if such a career is ever attained at all). Yet again, as with careers, social inequity can largely determine what low-level jobs any particular person can attain. As a result, someone who would be best suited to dealing with manual labor (for instance) may land jobs away from the sun and heat, perhaps preferring a job indoors, while a person who would be best suited to talking to customers may prefer a job organizing. This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people.
  
  Thus, while no one loves manual labor, I would argue that for a number of reasons, some may be more suited to such work than others. In the end, you will have people forced into positions (to "pay rent") where they are (perhaps indefinitely) doing work for which they are not at all suited (which can be very unsettling).
  
  So even if, realistically speaking, we have do unpleasant things every now and then in life, there seems to be little excuse for the level of incongruity which exists in society between traits and job conditions (as I am clearly hinting towards a lack of meritocratic mechanics). And this is certainly a very serious problem that deserves more than some general statement about "not always liking the things we do." There's philosophical problems which are going unaddressed and overlooked.
  
  
• This statement seems to blindly accept the status quo at face value. If there are social limitations as to how we go about conducting business in society and getting work done, there will clearly exist many instances where people will find themselves unhappy, along with the fact that life sometimes requires somewhat unpleasant action from day to day. But daily necessities (such as washing your face, taking a bath, and talking to people) are trivial and don't ever kill anyone, so to speak. Horrible profit-based capitalistic necessities (in order to live), on the other hand, aren't trivial at all, as people really do tend to find meaning in work (so long as they are generally suited to the job itself).
  
  So again, if for some people, finding meaningful work is a very difficult goal (and this is true for many people), we should not so easily cast it off and brush it aside as "just shit you gotta do every now and then." This makes slaves of some people, while others love the work they do. So certainly, there are legitimate social issues at work here, and propping it up to be some instance of people simply preferring not to do unpleasant work really misses the larger point.

It doesn't matter what kind of individual we are talking about as long as it's healthy.

Given all individuals are psychologically different, I would think it does matter.

In fact, I would think the ability to enter one's mind and get energized by thinking would make repetitive tasks much more tolerable as one can spend the entire day thinking.

Actually, those who prefer ideas to concrete tasks usually don't like repetition, tedious details, or following standardized models. But again, the concern of thinking versus engaging in repetitive tasks somewhat misses the point, in that we really must ask the question, "On what basis should we be content to have those who prefer ideas and thinking to repetitive physical tasks forced -- through a lack of feasible alternatives -- into work which they utterly abhor?" A good answer to this may be satisfactory, if indeed you have something to say with regard to this deeper question.

I've had various "sensing" friends throughout the years, and they don't like repetitive tasks either. It's not about liking stuff, it's about taking responsibility and make an effort. In some cases, making the best out of what one got. Attitude matters a lot in regard to how one likes one's work.

While I think intuitive types tend to be the most offset by tedious work, I don't really care to limit this discussion to "intuitives and sensors." Some intuitives are organized, efficient, structured (NJs), while some are very analytical and technically inclined (with perhaps mathematical skills, NTs), while some are very expressive and comedic (ENPs) and some very good with people (ENFs). Certainly then, while intuitives may not like tedious work, it would be fair to say that there are a great many intuitives who can find some level of meaningful work in the world at some point in their lives. So clearly, even with respect to the S/N distinction, not all Ns equally suffer from the current state of things when it comes to finding meaningful work.

So, the reason I don't want to limit this discussion to just the S/N distinction is that this variation between intuitives also seems to somewhat exist between sensors. Society seems to place a higher stable premium on organizers, structured types, and those who can manage people efficiently. The highest paying jobs often involve some form of management. (Either that or some form of incredible risk and skill, like a surgeon). Thus, judgers will likely find work easier in the system, along with extraverts who can easily deal with the great interpersonal demands of life in society, feelers who can be of great "human-service" to others in a world of many social needs, and thinkers who can engage in many somewhat passionless occupations that involve great technical complexity (such as physics, mathematics, engineering, and mechanics). Introverts, unless they land a nice writing career, are usually forced to come out of their shell in a life of work, while perceivers often must look for very unconventional jobs, where there's less security or guarantee of success.

So overall, there clearly exist many problems with how we allocate jobs in today's world. You guys think we should all just suck it up, responsibly (passively) take the conditions of life for granted, and that we should just put forth effort and make lemonade when life hands us lemons. But I disagree. This is like telling African Americans to just "suck it up" and deal with the results of historic racism rather than slowly reform a society which still places them at a great disadvantage in comparison to others of a much lighter skin pigment. I think people should have the comfort of knowing that if we are going to all (supposedly) "cooperatively" work together to meet all our collective needs, that we at least allocate the jobs as efficiently and rationally as possible, with perhaps having an interest in accommodating anyone not easily suited to most forms of labor. Essentially, I agree John Rawls on the issue. To me, those who honestly are not very compatible with the nature of things aren't "parasites." To me, it's the people who benefit most from this giant web of human cooperation and yet do not hold concern for the welfare of others who are the real parasites. To me, it's the people who only look at their own circumstances, while ignoring those of others, who are the real parasites. And so far, I've seen very little acknowledgment (at the very least) of the problems of which I speak. So I suppose, if the problems do not affect one, one then does not have an interest in such problems? This is entirely narrow-minded thinking.

Here's an interesting, and very powerful, passage from Rawls:

We should reject the contention that the ordering of institutions is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if the refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on a par with being unable to accept death. The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular positions. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, sec. 17)

 

[Puffy]

What do you think are your suitable career paths, Philosophyking?

If we're basing this on types, I would think if there are only 16 that between the 16 many, many roles would have to be filled, suggesting that INTPs are inclined towards more than just studying philosophy.

 

[Minuend]

Too much justification. Doesn't make you right. I had a liiiiittle alcohol.

 

[xbox]

I am bored shitless with this PhD and I am only 3 months in. I was thinking about quitting but then I will have to pay back the scholarships. I can only cover 90% of what I have received so far.

So ehh...

Depends on how much you value the phd and if its worth your time.

 

[xbox]

Too much justification. Doesn't make you right. I had a liiiiittle alcohol.

Earlier I unintentionally inhaled a lot of febreeze. Does that count?

 

[Minuend]

You always count, xbox. Even if you don't have an avatar

 

[Puffy]

I like xbox. We should have an xbox party.

 

[Minuend]

yes! you are very right puffy suffy!

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Depends on how much you value the phd and if its worth your time.

At the moment I am constructing a large experiment and putting forward a business plan to companies that may wish to participate. It is most definitely interesting.

As long as I am not idle, the PhD should be fine.

 

[Puffy]

I considered changing my name to snuffy at one point.

Jesus Christ. Your name is impossible to rhyme.

Binuend? Stinuendox? Flinuendo?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Spoiler

This misses the point.

• One of the main issues was the "lack of suitable potential careers." Given the nature of this issue, therefore, it doesn't seem to make much sense to just say, "Every once in a while, we just have to suck it up," because careers are a matter of continuous longevity and routine -- not sporadic variance. So clearly, the real issue is much larger and deserves more than a simple, not very relevant statement about doing unpleasant work simply every now and then.
  
  
• Even if we do consider the reality of generally doing unpleasant things in life from time to time (a rather broad notion to which I do not recall anyone objecting), there's still a problem. Certainly one example of "doing unpleasant things" is working various low-level jobs prior to the attainment of a suitable career (if such a career is ever attained at all). Yet again, as with careers, social inequity can largely determine what low-level jobs any particular person can attain. As a result, someone who would be best suited to dealing with manual labor (for instance) may land jobs away from the sun and heat, perhaps preferring a job indoors, while a person who would be best suited to talking to customers may prefer a job organizing. This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people.
  
  Thus, while no one loves manual labor, I would argue that for a number of reasons, some may be more suited to such work than others. In the end, you will have people forced into positions (to "pay rent") where they are (perhaps indefinitely) doing work for which they are not at all suited (which can be very unsettling).
  
  So even if, realistically speaking, we have do unpleasant things every now and then in life, there seems to be little excuse for the level of incongruity which exists in society between traits and job conditions (as I am clearly hinting towards a lack of meritocratic mechanics). And this is certainly a very serious problem that deserves more than some general statement about "not always liking the things we do." There's philosophical problems which are going unaddressed and overlooked.
  
  
• This statement seems to blindly accept the status quo at face value. If there are social limitations as to how we go about conducting business in society and getting work done, there will clearly exist many instances where people will find themselves unhappy, along with the fact that life sometimes requires somewhat unpleasant action from day to day. But daily necessities (such as washing your face, taking a bath, and talking to people) are trivial and don't ever kill anyone, so to speak. Horrible profit-based capitalistic necessities (in order to live), on the other hand, aren't trivial at all, as people really do tend to find meaning in work (so long as they are generally suited to the job itself).
  
  So again, if for some people, finding meaningful work is a very difficult goal (and this is true for many people), we should not so easily cast it off and brush it aside as "just shit you gotta do every now and then." This makes slaves of some people, while others love the work they do. So certainly, there are legitimate social issues at work here, and propping it up to be some instance of people simply preferring not to do unpleasant work really misses the larger point.

Given all individuals are psychologically different, I would think it does matter.



Actually, those who prefer ideas to concrete tasks usually don't like repetition, tedious details, or following standardized models. But again, the concern of thinking versus engaging in repetitive tasks somewhat misses the point, in that we really must ask the question, "On what basis should we be content to have those who prefer ideas and thinking to repetitive physical tasks forced -- through a lack of feasible alternatives -- into work which they utterly abhor?" A good answer to this may be satisfactory, if indeed you have something to say with regard to this deeper question.



While I think intuitive types tend to be the most offset by tedious work, I don't really care to limit this discussion to "intuitives and sensors." Some intuitives are organized, efficient, structured (NJs), while some are very analytical and technically inclined (with perhaps mathematical skills, NTs), while some are very expressive and comedic (ENPs) and some very good with people (ENFs). Certainly then, while intuitives may not like tedious work, it would be fair to say that there are a great many intuitives who can find some level of meaningful work in the world at some point in their lives. So clearly, even with respect to the S/N distinction, not all Ns equally suffer from the current state of things when it comes to finding meaningful work.

So, the reason I don't want to limit this discussion to just the S/N distinction is that this variation between intuitives also seems to somewhat exist between sensors. Society seems to place a higher stable premium on organizers, structured types, and those who can manage people efficiently. The highest paying jobs often involve some form of management. (Either that or some form of incredible risk and skill, like a surgeon). Thus, judgers will likely find work easier in the system, along with extraverts who can easily deal with the great interpersonal demands of life in society, feelers who can be of great "human-service" to others in a world of many social needs, and thinkers who can engage in many somewhat passionless occupations that involve great technical complexity (such as physics, mathematics, engineering, and mechanics). Introverts, unless they land a nice writing career, are usually forced to come out of their shell in a life of work, while perceivers often must look for very unconventional jobs, where there's less security or guarantee of success.

So overall, there clearly exist many problems with how we allocate jobs in today's world. You guys think we should all just suck it up, responsibly (passively) take the conditions of life for granted, and that we should just put forth effort and make lemonade when life hands us lemons. But I disagree. This is like telling African Americans to just "suck it up" and deal with the results of historic racism rather than slowly reform a society which still places them at a great disadvantage in comparison to others of a much lighter skin pigment. I think people should have the comfort of knowing that if we are going to all (supposedly) "cooperatively" work together to meet all our collective needs, that we at least allocate the jobs as efficiently and rationally as possible, with perhaps having an interest in accommodating anyone not easily suited to most forms of labor. Essentially, I agree John Rawls on the issue. To me, those who honestly are not very compatible with the nature of things aren't "parasites." To me, it's the people who benefit most from this giant web of human cooperation and yet do not hold concern for the welfare of others who are the real parasites. To me, it's the people who only look at their own circumstances, while ignoring those of others, who are the real parasites. And so far, I've seen very little acknowledgment (at the very least) of the problems of which I speak. So I suppose, if the problems do not affect one, one then does not have an interest in such problems? This is entirely narrow-minded thinking.

Here's an interesting, and very powerful, passage from Rawls:

You write too much nonsense about subjects that you do not understand or can't possibly understand. I am unsure to the extent that your mind has been destroyed by the sole exposure to the tripe that you advocate. Regardless of your powers to obfuscate and mention rhetoric such as 'inequality', you are a parasite of the same type as Ophiocordyceps unilateralis.

 

[BigApplePi]

Seems to me you are making a lot of speculations. That is fine, but are your conclusions okay?

• One of the main issues was the "lack of suitable potential careers." Given the nature of this issue, therefore, it doesn't seem to make much sense to just say, "Every once in a while, we just have to suck it up," because careers are a matter of continuous longevity and routine -- not sporadic variance. So clearly, the real issue is much larger and deserves more than a simple, not very relevant statement about doing unpleasant work simply every now and then.

• Career or job? A career is something you train for, develop, immerse yourself in and are valued for. Hopefully you wouldn't do that unless you liked it. A job is work in exchange for life support. Anything unpleasant is compensated for and rewarded by that life support.

• Even if we do consider the reality of generally doing unpleasant things in life from time to time (a rather broad notion to which I do not recall anyone objecting), there's still a problem. Certainly one example of "doing unpleasant things" is working various low-level jobs prior to the attainment of a suitable career (if such a career is ever attained at all). Yet again, as with careers, social inequity can largely determine what low-level jobs any particular person can attain. As a result, someone who would be best suited to dealing with manual labor (for instance) may land jobs away from the sun and heat, perhaps preferring a job indoors, while a person who would be best suited to talking to customers may prefer a job organizing. This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people.

  Sure jobs and worker can be mismatched. Consider supply and demand. If lots of jobs are available, pick what you like. If you are starving, take what you can get.
  

  Thus, while no one loves manual labor, I would argue that for a number of reasons, some may be more suited to such work than others. In the end, you will have people forced into positions (to "pay rent") where they are (perhaps indefinitely) doing work for which they are not at all suited (which can be very unsettling).

  Speak for yourself. I worked at a desk job for 30 years. I craved manual labor and now love it. Albeit it's a luxury or avocation now.
• 
  

  So even if, realistically speaking, we have do unpleasant things every now and then in life, there seems to be little excuse for the level of incongruity which exists in society between traits and job conditions (as I am clearly hinting towards a lack of meritocratic mechanics). And this is certainly a very serious problem that deserves more than some general statement about "not always liking the things we do." There's philosophical problems which are going unaddressed and overlooked.

  A very general statement. Since I haven't read much of this thread, I haven't much to say to that except wonder if you are talking about yourself or others.

• This statement seems to blindly accept the status quo at face value. If there are social limitations as to how we go about conducting business in society and getting work done, there will clearly exist many instances where people will find themselves unhappy, along with the fact that life sometimes requires somewhat unpleasant action from day to day. But daily necessities (such as washing your face, taking a bath, and talking to people) are trivial and don't ever kill anyone, so to speak. Horrible profit-based capitalistic necessities (in order to live), on the other hand, aren't trivial at all, as people really do tend to find meaning in work (so long as they are generally suited to the job itself).

  You must be talking about yourself here. I'd like to know what jobs or careers you might favor what with your philosophical background. Have you taken any tests for job preferences?
  

  [*]
  So again, if for some people, finding meaningful work is a very difficult goal (and this is true for many people), we should not so easily cast it off and brush it aside as "just shit you gotta do every now and then." This makes slaves of some people, while others love the work they do. So certainly, there are legitimate social issues at work here, and propping it up to be some instance of people simply preferring not to do unpleasant work really misses the larger point.

  How about this as a large point? Sometimes a job is a stepping stone to see what's out there. First you get experience. Try a variety of jobs if you lack a career. You can't predict your experience ahead of time. You grow. Try various things until you get the hang of it.

• Actually, those who prefer ideas to concrete tasks usually don't like repetition, tedious details, or following standardized models. But again, the concern of thinking versus engaging in repetitive tasks somewhat misses the point, in that we really must ask the question, "On what basis should we be content to have those who prefer ideas and thinking to repetitive physical tasks forced -- through a lack of feasible alternatives -- into work which they utterly abhor?" A good answer to this may be satisfactory, if indeed you have something to say with regard to this deeper question.

  Sounds like you could be trying out for employment counselor, lol.

While I think intuitive types tend to be the most offset by tedious work, I don't really care to limit this discussion to "intuitives and sensors." Some intuitives are organized, efficient, structured (NJs), while some are very analytical and technically inclined (with perhaps mathematical skills, NTs), while some are very expressive and comedic (ENPs) and some very good with people (ENFs). Certainly then, while intuitives may not like tedious work, it would be fair to say that there are a great many intuitives who can find some level of meaningful work in the world at some point in their lives. So clearly, even with respect to the S/N distinction, not all Ns equally suffer from the current state of things when it comes to finding meaningful work.
So, the reason I don't want to limit this discussion to just the S/N distinction is that this variation between intuitives also seems to somewhat exist between sensors. Society seems to place a higher stable premium on organizers, structured types, and those who can manage people efficiently. The highest paying jobs often involve some form of management. (Either that or some form of incredible risk and skill, like a surgeon). Thus, judgers will likely find work easier in the system, along with extraverts who can easily deal with the great interpersonal demands of life in society, feelers who can be of great "human-service" to others in a world of many social needs, and thinkers who can engage in many somewhat passionless occupations that involve great technical complexity (such as physics, mathematics, engineering, and mechanics). Introverts, unless they land a nice writing career, are usually forced to come out of their shell in a life of work, while perceivers often must look for very unconventional jobs, where there's less security or guarantee of success.

I was right. You want to be an employment counselor, matching people to jobs.

 

[Philosophyking87]

What do you think are your suitable career paths, Philosophyking?

If we're basing this on types, I would think if there are only 16 that between the 16 many, many roles would have to be filled, suggesting that INTPs are inclined towards more than just studying philosophy.

Eeeeh. It's complicated.

For the most part, I seem to have at least "one" significant deficiency for any particular career I have entertained. The most important are a) psychology and b) law. Most psychology majors become therapists, counselors, or clinical psychologists (which usually requires the ability of being rather gentle and caring with clients). I'm extremely unemotional, making an occupation like that very hard to imagine. Since law is the best route for any philosophy major, I see it as a nice potential backup. However, while I may have the ability to reason analytically, create and criticize arguments, and generally write effectively, I am extremely shy, not very good with tedious details, not at all structured, with virtually no time management skills or organization whatsoever. Plus, I'm not very good with intense pressure and great responsibility, making a career like that also hard to imagine.

I initially wanted to go into graphic art (as I tend to have a slight talent for drawing), but a school counselor basically warned against poverty, which made me think twice about that option. I then wanted to learn music theory, which would have been very bad (I'd imagine). And eventually I realized that the only thing I love doing innately is reasoning philosophically (which as an occupation I can see no major problems with, other than I would have to work a bit at learning to lecture in front of students). I dislike math (which takes physics out of the equation). I generally do not like the scientific method (taking most sciences out of the question). Thus, most traditional INTx jobs involve things I absolutely find uninteresting, dry, and boring. I'm an extremely non-technical person with creative, artistic tendencies. Yet I don't seem to have the talent to enter any particular fields. And lastly, I tend to have very great writing skills, although I dislike the idea of having to find material to write about like a fiend, with constant deadlines. Id' rather write at my own pace (which clearly starts hinting at freelancing... but it seems like a very unconventional route).

A really cool idea was perhaps writing for a philosophical/scientific magazine, but the resumes they expect are probably intense (with lots of science degrees, I'd imagine). So yup, jobs with which I am compatible are not at all common, seem a bit scarce, and there's no "obvious route" with which they can be acquired.

Hence my being a philosophy major. I'm a creative thinker with very little practical skills and work ethic.

It's funny that a philosophy professor somewhere once said, "If you can imagine yourself doing anything else -- do that." Ergo... lol

Sounds like you could be trying out for employment counselor, lol... I was right. You want to be an employment counselor, matching people to jobs.

Sounds like an interesting possibility, as I was thinking of majoring in psychology anyway. One immediate problem I see is that career counselors usually need to be able to "facilitate communication between large groups of people." This could be a problem, but then again, teach philosophy sometimes involves the same thing. Another is that career counselors need to be very organized and must have great planning skills. Not sure how large of problems these two considerations are, but you seem to be on to something interesting here with this suggestion. =)

 

[xbox]

I considered changing my name to snuffy at one point.

Jesus Christ. Your name is impossible to rhyme.

Binuend? Stinuendox? Flinuendo?

bulbasaur

 

[Minuend]

^approved!

I considered changing my name to snuffy at one point

The horror

Also, completely on topic:

 

[snafupants]

That comic book strip smacks of an INTJ and INTP shooting the breeze. Completely different functions at play there which, in time, leads to frustration and miscommunication.

 

[BigApplePi]

That comic book strip smacks of an INTJ and INTP shooting the breeze. Completely different functions at play there which, in time, leads to frustration and miscommunication.

So it's a matter of TRANSLATION (UMS) . Clones may be the same atom for atom, but their environments are different. One is on the left and the other on the right. Do we agree?

Later. The engineer differentiated them by which one came first. Presumably they were marked as such. The markings would enable the INTJ and INTP to agree. It is a common missing ingredient to forget the environment by concentrating on content too much.

 

[Puffy]

^approved!



The horror

Also, completely on topic:

+1

 

[BigApplePi]

@Philosophyking87

For the most part, I seem to have at least "one" significant deficiency for any particular career I have entertained. The most important are a) psychology and b) law. Most psychology majors become therapists, counselors, or clinical psychologists (which usually requires the ability of being rather gentle and caring with clients). I'm extremely unemotional, making an occupation like that very hard to imagine. Since law is the best route for any philosophy major, I see it as a nice potential backup. However, while I may have the ability to reason analytically, create and criticize arguments, and generally write effectively, I am extremely shy, not very good with tedious details, not at all structured, with virtually no time management skills or organization whatsoever. Plus, I'm not very good with intense pressure and great responsibility, making a career like that also hard to imagine.

I initially wanted to go into graphic art (as I tend to have a slight talent for drawing), but a school counselor basically warned against poverty, which made me think twice about that option.

While I was in the shower I did some reflection on your situation. Don't know what I can remember as the shower doesn't permit me to take good notes or have computer access.

Short of a career if you can't set one ahead of time, you need to get your feet wet. You said you have some interest in art as opposed to technology. I have a technical/ science background but here in New York City, that is not in the forefront. How about a startup job in an art gallery? Knowledge and interest in art is required and philosophy would be a great supplement. The first job might be a lowly clerk, but there is opportunity to move ahead. One can't start out a curator, but that is a prestige vocation.

You mention you are shy. So was I. We can't do a psychoanalysis here, but for me my shyness was a great handicap. I was unable to make vocational choices to advance myself. I think shyness represents fear, but only in certain social situations. If I didn't know what to do in a crowd I didn't like, no wonder I wasn't bold. Today I don't place myself in unpleasant situations unless I'm deliberately taking chances.

If I had something else to say I don't recall it.

 

[pernoctator]

I couldn't thoroughly read all the long posts here, but I find myself siding with Philosophyking, who seems to have been misunderstood. What he is presenting is idealism. Whether or not it's practical to always live according to an ideal in a non-ideal world is irrelevant to the validity of the idea. People are misinterpreting the question "why should we have to do work we don't want to" as a selfish refusal to accept hard uncaring reality, instead of taking it literally and actually considering "why should we?" If we could somehow quantify all the traits (i.e. natural talents etc.) of all the people in the world, we could feed all that data into a computer program to generate the correct configuration of the workforce -- everyone could be happy, and the world as a whole would get a lot more shit done, and done right. Am I making sense here? I think Philosophyking is just expressing the frustration of being subject to an imperfect society. I know the feeling.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I couldn't thoroughly read all the long posts here, but I find myself siding with Philosophyking, who seems to have been misunderstood. What he is presenting is idealism. Whether or not it's practical to always live according to an ideal in a non-ideal world is irrelevant to the validity of the idea. People are misinterpreting the question "why should we have to do work we don't want to" as a selfish refusal to accept hard uncaring reality, instead of taking it literally and actually considering "why should we?"

The fact of reality is that you don't have to do work that you do not wish to do. You are free to make your own decisions and act accordingly.

If you find that the disutility of working is not adequately compensated by the utility your receive in return, don't work.

The idealism enters the fray when people wish to offer nothing of value and receive something of value in return. Alternatively, they wish to offer nothing at all and receive something of value in return. Ultimately wanting to place the burden and disutility of fulfilling their wants and needs on others. The nature of a parasite.

If we could somehow quantify all the traits (i.e. natural talents etc.) of all the people in the world, we could feed all that data into a computer program to generate the correct configuration of the workforce -- everyone could be happy, and the world as a whole would get a lot more shit done, and done right. Am I making sense here? I think Philosophyking is just expressing the frustration of being subject to an imperfect society. I know the feeling.

This is not what the conversation is about. It is not about allocating the most apt person to a particular role. At the core, the conversation is about whether or not people should be free to make what ever decisions they so please and not have to bear the consequences of their actions. Obviously, if they're not bearing the consequences of their actions themselves, someone else will have to.

By the hypothetical means you have presented, you have advocated something very similar to philosophyking87. Instead of evading negative consequences because they're borne by others, you simply advocated system where negative consequences are evaded by decisions being made by a computer that can't be wrong.

If you have not realized this, you are not frustrated by being subjected to an imperfect society. You are frustrated by the thought of having to make decisions where the consequences could be negative. The fear of failure.

 

[Philosophyking87]

The fact of reality is that you don't have to do work that you do not wish to do. You are free to make your own decisions and act accordingly. If you find that the disutility of working is not adequately compensated by the utility your receive in return, don't work.

As I have thoroughly pointed out, this isn't always a feasible option.

The idealism enters the fray when people wish to offer nothing of value and receive something of value in return. Alternatively, they wish to offer nothing at all and receive something of value in return. Ultimately wanting to place the burden and disutility of fulfilling their wants and needs on others. The nature of a parasite.

This is another straw man.

1. No one ever said anything about "entitlement of compensation." Some supporting text for your extraordinary claims seems necessary at this point. Otherwise, you're not actually attacking/addressing the main issue at hand.

2. The notion of "sufficiently dignified work" does not at all have anything to do with being a "burden" on others. What we are speaking of here is potential "progress" in how we go about allocating jobs and managing/utilizing labor. The problem is that most people are simply bogged down by the anti-egalitarian, anti-progressive ideologies (such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, general conservatism, and libertarianism, not to mention the many arguments made by Milton Friedman, not all of which are philosophically sound - as John Rawls made fairly clear).

Logically speaking, just because someone finds the current system to be, from one view, quite faulty does not automatically, in any fashion, indicate that such a person is also someone who ultimately desires to live without working. Desiring to live without working is one thing; bearing an understandable amount of reluctance to work in a perceived flawed system is quite another thing entirely.

This is not what the conversation is about. It is not about allocating the most apt person to a particular role. At the core, the conversation is about whether or not people should be free to make what ever decisions they so please and not have to bear the consequences of their actions. Obviously, if they're not bearing the consequences of their actions themselves, someone else will have to.

On the contrary, the discussion did include, to a great extent, whether or not people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits. BigApplePie clearly noted his awareness of this when he said, "Sure jobs and worker can be mismatched," in response to my statement, "This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people."

Moreover, the notion that this discussion is about "being able to do whatever you want, without bearing consequences" is nothing more than a straw man. You did not properly read my posts if you think this is the case. What I was discussing was whether or not the fundamental building blocks of our very modern working system are justified and sound; the frustration many people experience within these systems is merely discussed in order to support the idea that these systems do not seem to accommodate all humans in a dignified fashion (as perhaps economic systems should). Whether or not people just want to sit around not working, even if it is true, is not the point.

By the hypothetical means you have presented, you have advocated something very similar to philosophyking87. Instead of evading negative consequences because they're borne by others, you simply advocated system where negative consequences are evaded by decisions being made by a computer that can't be wrong.

The "negative consequences" of which you speak are only so in the particular free markets of which we have been discussing. Again, my point here has been to suggest that this does not necessarily have to be the case. Instead, were the system designed a bit differently (without perhaps sacrificing the main benefits of the whole), it may just be the case that people no longer, in large numbers, refuse the notion of "employment," as perhaps the system can be altered to such an extent that people no longer perceive themselves to persist in a world in which they are utterly dependent on wages for survival (again, often through very little fault of their own). Thus, I speak of "sufficiently dignified work." It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

What I speak of is reform and change, not about welfare and just living off the work and effort of others. While I do, as John Rawls, think that welfare should have its place in society (look at Sweden and Norway), I don't at all advocate people who sit around all day living from government paychecks. I simply notice that people aren't always in a favorable position in society, as there is always a portion of the populace not doing entirely well, and safety nets should exist for people who often fall into these positions as a result of the many constantly shifting factors and patterns of an economy.

But again, rather than actually address the substance of my points, you continue to put words in my mouth.

The hourly productivity levels, as well as average hourly wages in Norway are among the highest in the world. The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society ensure that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies.

--

If you have not realized this, you are not frustrated by being subjected to an imperfect society. You are frustrated by the thought of having to make decisions where the consequences could be negative. The fear of failure.

No. The notion of an imperfect society is rather spot-on.
Pernoctator was actually intelligent enough to read my posts accurately/charitably ( according to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity).

What's more, what you are doing here is utterly fallacious.
It's called the Motive Fallacy (http://www.erepublik.com/bg/article/motive-fallacy-945397/1/20). It's a silly, very cheap ploy used to dismiss someone's argument on the basis of an assumed motive (a motive for which one may have no actual proof, evidence, or support).

Here's a few words of wisdom regarding this fallacy, in the hopes that perhaps you realize how utterly pointless it is to throw around fallacious ploys in a constant attempt to "win" (or at least to create the appearance of such a "victory").

To put it simply, it is a ploy used in debates to win against the opponent. Unfortunately it is not the proper way to win a debate. Instead of getting to the root of the problem and debating it in a civil manner, one person will decide to look into what their opponent gains with hopes of winning from motives of their opponent...

Of course those involved in the debate want to win. Whether your opponent has something to gain from their side of the debate or not, pointing it out does not automatically make you right in any type of debate. To be honest, it only makes you look silly. It does not suffice to show that their point of view is false. If it did, entering into a debate would be self-defeating because attempting to win would immediately show your position to be wrong. To refute their view you need to show what is wrong with their case, not what is wrong with their motives. Show the facts, explain them.

[P.s., the fact that you so often resort to fallacious reasoning -- by greatly distorting/misrepresenting your opponent's views -- really does call into question this entire notion that you "won all the debates" in the past. Sure... using cheap ploys to appear the victor does not make it so. That's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

I truly do, genuinely, hope that you discontinue to use the petty tactics you've utterly exhausted so far, up to this point. It is not very flattering.]

 

[yogurtexpress]

2. There are many unfortunate individuals (often very bright) in society who would very much like the chance to enroll in any PhD (or Master's) programs, but either lack sufficient funds or went to horrible inner-city urban schooling that left them unprepared to deal with the demands of college.

Bad argument. I went to an inner-city urban high school myself but it still offered several honors and Advanced Placement programs for those who had the aptitude. Also, when I started college I simply started studying more to make up for all the things I didn't learn in high school.

I had a Chemistry teacher who dropped out of high school but eventually worked his way to a Master's. Your past experience and lack of income don't determine your goals. If you're bright, that's already a launching point to accomplish what you need to do (scholarships are available).

 

[yogurtexpress]

BAP, you're mistaken. They no longer teach logic in philosophy.

Yes they do.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Bad argument. I went to an inner-city urban high school myself but it still offered several honors and Advanced Placement programs for those who had the aptitude. Also, when I started college I simply started studying more to make up for all the things I didn't learn in high school.

I had a Chemistry teacher who dropped out of high school but eventually worked his way to a Master's. Your past experience and lack of income don't determine your goals. If you're bright, that's already a launching point to accomplish what you need to do (scholarships are available).

Honors and AP courses are trivial. They only amount to a better looking resume when applying for colleges; they don't always actually prepare students for the demands of college. Hence, they're somewhat, not only superficial, but quite irrelevant to this conversation.

Furthermore, there is something wrong with the very fact that some students must spend the extra time essentially teaching themselves what they should have learned in high school, while others, often privileged, simply go through a typical, rather hand-fed process, whereby they do not essentially have to become their own instructors. Some people are autodidacts, and these individuals can clearly teach themselves many things, while many people are not and do not learn easily on their own without instruction.

Thus, what you are essentially doing here is comparing the abilities of some (likely minority) of bright individuals and then supposing that if they can do, so should others. But there is clearly something very flawed in this type of reasoning: not all individuals operate in the same fashion.

In sum, at no point have you really removed the problem I posed: that due to bad education and inner-city urban environments, some students (even bright ones) are potentially harmed, as these schools often lack the quality necessary to prepare students adequately for college (which is essentially the very "point" of the educational system). Why call it an educational system at all, if some students will not be well educated, and must them educate themselves? It's clearly flawed.

Without aid, most underprivileged students simply cannot compete with students from better schools -- despite personal aptitude and intelligence. Educational inequity is a real problem, and it definitely leads to situations in which some people are dependent upon bad wages for survival (due to low-skills, due to bad education).

 

[yogurtexpress]

Honors and AP courses are trivial. They only amount to a better looking resume when applying for colleges; they don't always actually prepare students for the demands of college. Hence, they're somewhat, not only superficial, but quite irrelevant to this conversation.

Trivial? Have you ever taken a fucking AP course or are you basing this on something you read or heard from elsewhere? The AP tests are more difficult than anything you have to take in college. They not only prepare students for college but give them an advantage.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Trivial? Have you ever taken a fucking AP course or are you basing this on something you read or heard from elsewhere? The AP tests are more difficult than anything you have to take in college. They not only prepare students for college but give them an advantage.

Yes. I took chemistry and physics AP.
It obviously wasn't a fucking walk in the park.

Despite this, I found that my particular high school was so poor in terms of educational quality, that even the AP courses were not beneficial.

Why? Well, the AP courses were not available for every subject, just mostly the sciences. As a result, even if I had gained a very great understanding of chemistry and physics, subjects such as English were only honors courses. Moreover, the English and mathematics professors were so poor at performing their job duties that by the time I reached senior year, an ex-college professor from an actual university (who apparently decided to teach at our extremely poor high school) could barely manage to bring us up to the "minimum" level at which we were supposed to be. Every day, she noted how our previous teachers had failed us, as the most linguistically advanced student (an INFP, and one of my friends) could not even manage to pass her "basic" grammar test. What was my friend's grade? A 53, or so. The rest of the class failed abysmally.

You take things like that into context, and it isn't very hard to see how even with a few honors and AP courses, a great many inner-city schools are simply struggling to adequately prepare students for college and the world of work. And I'm sure this problem is even worse in Southeastern United States.

Where did most of the students of my class end up going to college (those who even bothered)? The local community college. And I wasn't surprised one bit. A greater amount of the students just started looking for jobs, and I have seen plenty of them working at nearby grocery stores just to make end's meat...

Most people live in bubbles of delusion, unaware of the true problems out there in society. No one talks about it. No one speaks of it. But it's always there. I would guess that most people of somewhat privileged backgrounds tend to have more access to things like the internet/computer technology (even if it's true that these resources are becoming much more accessible). On the other hand, most people of underprivileged backgrounds usually tend to have to struggle and work for very little pay, such that they aren't always just sitting around typing on forums. They are so exhausted from work that they just do other things, even if they can manage to pay for these services.

As a result, I'm usually not surprised to find that most people on the internet tend to have a very small awareness of just how bad the educational conditions are in some parts of the country.

 

[yogurtexpress]

Oh well, the world isn't fair and never will be. It's like that comic that was posted earlier in the thread. There have to be people who have it good and people who don't. And the reason for this goes back to Darwin: we all have different genes, and different survival strategies. So of course there will be winners and losers. The people who are the winners now are the people who can give less of a flying shit about the poor education system. And frankly, I don't blame them. If I had a mansion with wine and crackers and fancy pieces of art, I wouldn't care either. It's man's nature to be selfish. No reason to give a shit about others when you have everyone else doing all the work for you.

You can't depend on anyone in this world, because even your parents get sick of you eventually. Just don't expect shit from anyone and do what you have to do, try to reproduce and then die. That's all there is really.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Oh well, the world isn't fair and never will be.

lol

I can imagine this is what many slave owners said to condone their practices, rather than actually rationally justify their ways.

Have a nice day.

 

[yogurtexpress]

They did try to rationally justify their ways. Why do you think it was legal for so long?

 

[Philosophyking87]

They did try to rationally justify their ways. Why do you think it was legal for so long?

I said, "what many slave owners said..."

I did not say they all avoided the attempt to actually rationally justify their actions; many clearly did (and failed).

 

[yogurtexpress]

They didn't fail. We still have slave owners now.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Slavery was clearly not outlawed much at all a few centuries back. Almost all countries ban it now. In this sense, they have failed. Thus, it's current existence does not mean it is rationally condoned/accepted.

jeez.... dense...

 

[yogurtexpress]

It is rationally condoned and accepted. Haven't you been to McDonald's?

 

[Philosophyking87]

You just committed a basic fallacy: equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation


I was comparing your cop out statement, "Well, the world just isn't fair," to what I'd imagine many literal, official, and legitimate slave owners (not secret slave owners, and not mere "employers") likely said when they were questioned about their practices (the specific practice of engaging in actual slavery).

Therefore, bringing up McDonald's, based on the fact that the current wage-labor system is indeed akin to a form of "slavery-in-a-sense," makes no sense. So when I said "slavery" these prior posts, I meant it literally, not figuratively. As such, I ask you to offer evidence of the widespread acceptance of literal slavery -- not mere entry-level jobs.

If you cannot, my argument stands. Slavery is no longer largely condoned in the world; many countries have officially legally abolished it. It merely happens to be the case that many people still secretly engage in this criminal activity. Therefore, in this sense, those who opposed abolitism have largely failed. Stop playing with words to appear to have an argument when you really do not.

Anyone who says, "The world just isn't fair," is hardly any more ethically advanced than those people in history who have used their power and dominance to outright subjugate and exploit others. My point, which seems to have gone over your head, was that the phrase is highly indicative of the fact that one lacks any actual basis for their views.

If you actually had an argument which can justify why it's okay, and why people should accept, that some people should benefit from social cooperation while some should not, you wouldn't need to resort to the extremely embarrassing and invalid point that, "The world just isn't fair" (which completely overlooks the question of justice). Oddly enough, this happens to be the very argument made by Milton Friedman (which John Rawls easily showed to be erroneous).

Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned. But it is also important to recognize how much we benefit from the very unfairness we deplore. there's nothing fair . . . about Muhammad Ali's having been born with the skill that made him a great fighter . . . It is certainly not fair that Muhammad Ali should be able to earn millions of dollars in one night. But wouldn't it have been even more unfair to the people who enjoyed watching him if, in the pursuit of some abstract ideal of equality, Muhammad Ali had not been permitted to earn more for one night's fight . . . than the lowest man on the totem pole could get for a day's unskilled work on the docks? (Friedman, Free to Choose, 136-7)

We should reject the contention that the ordering of institutions is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if the refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on a par with being unable to accept death. The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular positions. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, sec. 17)

I don't know about you, but there definitely seems to be a flaw in simply stating that "life is unfair" as a current factual description of reality, and then supposing that this "is just how things are." This is the nautralistic fallacy. Just because things are unfair doesn't mean they should be, or that there is nothing wrong with such a state of things. Therefore, if indeed the lack of fairness in our very social and economic systems is a big issue for those who seek social justice, merely pointing out the default existence of unfairness doesn't really bear any relevance. In order to truly lay these issues to rest, you need actual arguments.

Hence my mere "lol" in response to your post.
And frankly, your response didn't deserve anything more.

Moreover, I find that its defeatist, tradition attitudes like this -- that "life is unfair and always will be" -- that lead to the very persistence of such unfairness the world over, in the very first place.

Again, slave owners a few centuries back may have said, "life is just unfair, get over it," and many people may have seen this as enough reason to accept the status quo. Yet we clearly now know that most civilized people do not see this as enough justification to accept such despicable practices. Likewise, saying "life is just unfair" is not enough reason to accept the status quo today. It's weak, it's impotent, and it's invalid.

 

[pernoctator]

The idealism enters the fray when people wish to offer nothing of value and receive something of value in return. Alternatively, they wish to offer nothing at all and receive something of value in return. Ultimately wanting to place the burden and disutility of fulfilling their wants and needs on others. The nature of a parasite.

"Nothing of value"? Meaningless hyperbole. And where did a person's "wish" come into this? Again you're ignoring the idea itself, instead attributing attitudes and motives to the person and reacting to those.

This is not what the conversation is about. It is not about allocating the most apt person to a particular role. At the core, the conversation is about whether or not people should be free to make [highlight]what ever[/highlight] decisions they so please [highlight]and not have to bear the consequences of their actions.[/highlight] Obviously, if they're not bearing the consequences of their actions themselves, someone else will have to.

More hyperbole, highlighted. Is this your only approach to debate? Twisting the other guy's stance into an object of ridicule for your readers?

And yes, that is what the conversation is about. It may have been about other things as well, but that was definitely one of the points.

You are frustrated by the thought of having to make decisions where the consequences could be negative. The fear of failure.

Nope. Sorry.

 

[yogurtexpress]

You just committed a basic fallacy: equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation


I was comparing your cop out statement, "Well, the world just isn't fair," to what I'd imagine many literal, official, and legitimate slave owners (not secret slave owners, and not mere "employers") likely said when they were questioned about their practices (the specific practice of engaging in actual slavery).

Therefore, bringing up McDonald's, based on the fact that the current wage-labor system is indeed akin to a form of "slavery-in-a-sense," makes no sense. So when I said "slavery" these prior posts, I meant it literally, not figuratively. As such, I ask you to offer evidence of the widespread acceptance of literal slavery -- not mere entry-level jobs.

If you cannot, my argument stands. Slavery is no longer largely condoned in the world; many countries have officially legally abolished it. It merely happens to be the case that many people still secretly engage in this criminal activity. Therefore, in this sense, those who opposed abolitism have largely failed. Stop playing with words to appear to have an argument when you really do not.

Anyone who says, "The world just isn't fair," is hardly any more ethically advanced than those people in history who have used their power and dominance to outright subjugate and exploit others. My point, which seems to have gone over your head, was that the phrase is highly indicative of the fact that one lacks any actual basis for their views.

If you actually had an argument which can justify why it's okay, and why people should accept, that some people should benefit from social cooperation while some should not, you wouldn't need to resort to the extremely embarrassing and invalid point that, "The world just isn't fair" (which completely overlooks the question of justice). Oddly enough, this happens to be the very argument made by Milton Friedman (which John Rawls easily showed to be erroneous).





I don't know about you, but there definitely seems to be a flaw in simply stating that "life is unfair" as a current factual description of reality, and then supposing that this "is just how things are." This is the nautralistic fallacy. Just because things are unfair doesn't mean they should be, or that there is nothing wrong with such a state of things. Therefore, if indeed the lack of fairness in our very social and economic systems is a big issue for those who seek social justice, merely pointing out the default existence of unfairness doesn't really bear any relevance. In order to truly lay these issues to rest, you need actual arguments.

Hence my mere "lol" in response to your post.
And frankly, your response didn't deserve anything more.

Moreover, I find that its defeatist, tradition attitudes like this -- that "life is unfair and always will be" -- that lead to the very persistence of such unfairness the world over, in the very first place.

Again, slave owners a few centuries back may have said, "life is just unfair, get over it," and many people may have seen this as enough reason to accept the status quo. Yet we clearly now know that most civilized people do not see this as enough justification to accept such despicable practices. Likewise, saying "life is just unfair" is not enough reason to accept the status quo today. It's weak, it's impotent, and it's invalid.

So you were privy to the fact that I was playing with words to appear to have an argument, yet you still took my posts seriously enough to apply hard logic to them.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

As I have thoroughly pointed out, this isn't always a feasible option.

Then they have found the disutility of working to be less than the utility received in return and have made a conscious, rational decision to continue working.

This is another straw man.

1. No one ever said anything about "entitlement of compensation." Some supporting text for your extraordinary claims seems necessary at this point. Otherwise, you're not actually attacking/addressing the main issue at hand.

You implicitly did when you were referring to those intuitive, creative individuals that were not attuned to practical work. I quote:

Again, creative individuals are usually only valued for anything practical or profitable they offer to a largely sensor-dominant society. The typical work to be done in any community largely tends to base around practical tasks and social services of various sorts -- not creative ones. This can clearly be incredibly difficult for some Intuitive individuals to cope with, as their natural skills are not often of demand (leading to incredible competition), and they tend to come with a need for a higher level of education and training than the easier, more practical tasks. Philosophy clearly is a great example of this, along with psychology and anthropology, just to name a few others.

From this there're two possibilities that you advocate:

1) Attempt to change the values of society.
2) Burdening society with the cost of supporting these individuals who do not produce anything of value in return.

In the first circumstance they would not be parasites. In the second they would be.

2. The notion of "sufficiently dignified work" does not at all have anything to do with being a "burden" on others. What we are speaking of here is potential "progress" in how we go about allocating jobs and managing/utilizing labor. The problem is that most people are simply bogged down by the anti-egalitarian, anti-progressive ideologies (such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, general conservatism, and libertarianism, not to mention the many arguments made by Milton Friedman, not all of which are philosophically sound - as John Rawls made fairly clear).

If you attempt to centrally plan, quasi centrally plan the economy or grossly intervene, you will run into the Socialist Economic Calculation Conundrum. There is simply no way without the market's price determination mechanism to provide the information of what is valuable to society and what is not.

Note: In a market economy jobs are not allocated. People place requests for services on the market at a price they wish to pay and others choose whether or not they will engage in that exchange. They is called the bidding process. You may disagree with the remuneration but you're not a party in forming others' contractual arrangements, therefore your own valuation is utterly meaningless.

Logically speaking, just because someone finds the current system to be, from one view, quite faulty does not automatically, in any fashion, indicate that such a person is also someone who ultimately desires to live without working. Desiring to live without working is one thing; bearing an understandable amount of reluctance to work in a perceived flawed system is quite another thing entirely.

I am glad that you clarified that you're now speaking logically. I will assume that all posts up until now were not the product of logic.

On the contrary, the discussion did include, to a great extent, whether or not people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits. BigApplePie clearly noted his awareness of this when he said, "Sure jobs and worker can be mismatched," in response to my statement, "This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people."

How do you determine this mismatch? Is this information widely available? Actually, if it were, there would not be a mismatch. People would act on the information. Ergo, the information is not widely available.

I hope you do realize that generally comparatively lowly compensated work is undertaken by those with low level of productivity/ability. Overtime when people work they become more productive and acquire skills and in-turn can move onto roles where they can be compensated to a greater amount.

Moreover, the notion that this discussion is about "being able to do whatever you want, without bearing consequences" is nothing more than a straw man. You did not properly read my posts if you think this is the case. What I was discussing was whether or not the fundamental building blocks of our very modern working system are justified and sound; the frustration many people experience within these systems is merely discussed in order to support the idea that these systems do not seem to accommodate all humans in a dignified fashion (as perhaps economic systems should). Whether or not people just want to sit around not working, even if it is true, is not the point.

Your posts are too long and your substantives are not easily identifiable.

The "negative consequences" of which you speak are only so in the particular free markets of which we have been discussing. Again, my point here has been to suggest that this does not necessarily have to be the case. Instead, were the system designed a bit differently (without perhaps sacrificing the main benefits of the whole), it may just be the case that people no longer, in large numbers, refuse the notion of "employment," as perhaps the system can be altered to such an extent that people no longer perceive themselves to persist in a world in which they are utterly dependent on wages for survival (again, often through very little fault of their own). Thus, I speak of "sufficiently dignified work." It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

Have we been discussing free markets? I don't think so. I specifically referring to market economies.

People do in large numbers refuse employment. There are 88 million working age individuals in the US who choose not to participate in the labor market.

Instead, were the system designed a bit differently (without perhaps sacrificing the main benefits of the whole), it may just be the case that people no longer, in large numbers, refuse the notion of "employment," as perhaps the system can be altered to such an extent that people no longer perceive themselves to persist in a world in which they are utterly dependent on wages for survival (again, often through very little fault of their own).

People act on information that they have. To minimise disutility they will choose not to produce anything of value. So who then will bear the burden of sustaining these people's survival? In the current situation it is the distortion of the market through inflation. It particular won't last much longer when the market realizes the distortion.

I have run out time. I will get the rest of your post when I am not so busy.

 

[pernoctator]

From this there're two possibilities that you advocate:

1) Attempt to change the values of society.
2) Burdening society with the cost of supporting these individuals who do not produce anything of value in return.

False dichotomy. Things with value still have value regardless of whether Average Joe recognizes it. You're essentially arguing in favor of the status quo based on the presumption that the general presumptions of society are correct. It's a completely empty circular argument that could be applied to any issue in the world (and still be just as pointless).

It seems like all you have to say is a long-winded version of "deal with it, for this is the Way Things Are™". But apathy is boring.

 

[yogurtexpress]

False dichotomy. Things with value still have value regardless of whether Average Joe recognizes it. You're essentially arguing in favor of the status quo based on the presumption that the general presumptions of society are correct. It's a completely empty circular argument that could be applied to any issue in the world (and still be just as pointless).

It seems like all you have to say is a long-winded version of "deal with it, for this is the Way Things Are™". But apathy is boring.

I agree. Value in a lot of ways is subjective. A book written by a literary author won't sell as many copies as Harry Potter, but if there's a demand for the literary novel--as little as the demand may be--then the publisher will continue to print it. If Philosophyking is able to beat the competition and secure his post as a professor of philosophy, he's entitled to the position as long as students continue to sign up. Just because business programs have more funding doesn't mean you can deny philosophy students that education.

Also, shared social values change with time. Currently we're in a shitty economy, so math and science are being pushed. If values change (who knows, some famous artist changes how we look at the world and another Renaissance emerges) there could be more funding for the arts. You can't assume that technical fields will forever dominate just because it seems that society is moving in that direction. You don't know what the fuck will be 100 years from now.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

"Nothing of value"? Meaningless hyperbole. And where did a person's "wish" come into this? Again you're ignoring the idea itself, instead attributing attitudes and motives to the person and reacting to those.

Is that not what you want?

Maybe we should start the debate from scratch. Rules:

1) Write clearly and concisely.
2) Define your terms.
3) Use metaphors sparingly.
4) Use analogies sparingly.
5) Argue what you believe the problem is and why. Remember that statistical facts are not the reasons why.
6) Argue you ideal situation.
7) Argue the means to achieve your ideal situation.

More hyperbole, highlighted. Is this your only approach to debate? Twisting the other guy's stance into an object of ridicule for your readers?

And yes, that is what the conversation is about. It may have been about other things as well, but that was definitely one of the points.

Nope. Sorry.

I am very curious into the mindset that drives your side of the debate. From my perspective, it seems like you guys wish to evade the consequences of making decisions. For one, Philosophyking87 wishes people not to face the consequences of investing in a frivolous education which will not bear rent. You wish to evade the consequences of making decisions by passing the making of decisions to an infallible parent/god like computer.

False dichotomy. Things with value still have value regardless of whether Average Joe recognizes it. You're essentially arguing in favor of the status quo based on the presumption that the general presumptions of society are correct. It's a completely empty circular argument that could be applied to any issue in the world (and still be just as pointless).

It seems like all you have to say is a long-winded version of "deal with it, for this is the Way Things Are™". But apathy is boring.

It is not a false dichotomy.

Value is entirely subjective. Each person values things differently. There is no objective measure of value. Disregarding entrepreneurial activities, it is an impossibility to deduce whether or not a consumers's value of a particular good or service is correct or incorrect. Ergo, it is an impossibility to determine whether or not society's valuation of such services is correct or incorrect. All that can be deduced is that they value it.

Philosophyking87 complains about the state of affairs where such services are not in demand. This makes such ventures in specialization precarious due to the great risk on not being able to receive a return. What is implicit is he wishes to change the state of affairs. Knowing the nature of valuation, it being subjective, the only possibilities of remedying the situation is either:

1) Attempt to change the values of society by convincing them of the benefits of consuming such services.
2) Forcefully burdening society.

Which one will it be? Will you put a gun to my head and steal my wealth so a person can live an existence where they only consume and not produce?

 

[pernoctator]

Is that not what you want?

No.

I am very curious into the mindset that drives your side of the debate.

And therein lies the problem, as I've been trying to say. You can't seem to look past our motivations to the pure concepts. Your psychoanalyses of us is not only wrong but irrelevant.

There is no objective measure of value.

And therefore your blistered hands and glistening backside give you no more entitlement than the rest of us.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No.

Well you could have fooled me.

And therein lies the problem, as I've been trying to say. You can't seem to look past our motivations to the pure concepts. Your psychoanalyses of us is not only wrong but irrelevant.

You say the world is unjust and inequitable. You say it because you can't simply do what you feel like because must consider other things such as putting food on your plate. The ideal is to do what you want without having to bear the cost. The obvious question being 'who then bears the cost?' For it is not you. I would really love to know why you think others should bear the cost of your proposals.

And therefore your blistered hands and glistening backside give you no more entitlement than the rest of us.

I do not operate under pretenses of entitlement. I know that I am entitled to nothing. I know I have the right to what I produce because I am the one who produced it.

I don't understand why you think you're entitled to the wealth that others produce.

 

[snafupants]

Proxy, your awe-inspiring intellect is truly the envy of every aspiring forum member.

 

[pernoctator]

I do not operate under pretenses of entitlement. I know that I am entitled to nothing. I know I have the right to what I produce because I am the one who produced it.

First, the things that you produce are not the only things that you benefit from. Even in this non-ideal world, humanity often brings benefits to the whole. Are you arguing that this should not be the case?

Second, the type of things you produce are not the only type of things. The products of those whom you carelessly label "parasites" for not conforming to your Paul-Bunyan notion of contribution, also have value, and the world would be worse off without them just as it would be without the "conventional" products.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Proxy, your awe-inspiring intellect is truly the envy of every aspiring forum member.

rofl

If there is something wrong with how I perceive their arguments please correct me.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

First, the things that you produce are not the only things that you benefit from.

I apart from some work that I enjoy, I don't directly benefit from what I produce. The reason why I work is for what I get in exchange. The ability to purchase goods and services which I desire. I drink fine wine, attend enjoyable renditions, purchase interesting and thought provoking novels, attend lectures, compete in formal debating competitions, architecture tours, etc.

Then there're things I benefit from that don't pertain directly to my economic affairs. The value I derive from interacting with my close peers. Very fulfilling.

Even in this non-ideal world, humanity often brings benefits to the whole. Are you arguing that this should not be the case?

Does human bring benefits to the whole? What does this even mean? Are you alluding to some sort of abstraction?

Second, the type of things you produce are not the only type of things. The products of those whom you carelessly label "parasites" for not conforming to your Paul-Bunyan notion of contribution, also have value, and the world would be worse off without them just as it would be without the "conventional" products.

What do you mean by use of the term 'contribution'?

Once again, value is subjective. There is no objective measure. What individuals value is their own prerogative.

If they did produce and people saw value in it, people would exchange for their services.

 

[pernoctator]

I don't directly benefit from what I produce.

Ah, now you're catching on.

Does human bring benefits to the whole? What does this even mean?

lol. I'm not sure what that means, as it's broken grammar. It's not what I said. What don't you understand?

What do you mean by use of the term 'contribution'?

Once again, value is subjective. There is no objective measure. What individuals value is their own prerogative.

If they did produce and people saw value in it, people would exchange for their services.

Well they do produce, and people do see value in it. You don't. You're acting as if these jobs don't exist period. That's not what this is about.

You also need to consider that "what individuals value" is not necessarily the same as what their values are derived from. Value can exist and be indirectly benefited from even by people who don't specifically recognize it. Thus by your reasoning we could say many average people are also parasites for choosing to contribute in a manner that happens to be unrelated to some portion of the total benefits they receive.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Ah, now you're catching on.

Right... And that was your great point? I am so glad you speak with such ambiguity that you lead me a down path of self-discovery. With that said, I must burst your bubble. Economists have been writing of the benefits of the division of labor for quite some time.

lol. I'm not sure what that means, as it's broken grammar. It's not what I said. What don't you understand?

Are you pointing to some abstract notion I am unaware of? Or are you simply writing words for the sake of writing words?

Well they do produce, and people do see value in it. You don't. You're acting as if these jobs don't exist period. That's not what this is about.

This whole debate is not about whether or not I value such services. I don't. I don't give two shits about people who want to study philosophy. I think it is an absolutely terrible decision from a financial point of view. It has potentially ruinous consequences. Out of my general altruistic nature I recommend people not do it. If they wish to study philosophy, they can do it as a hobby or when they can actually bear the costs.

The debate is about whether others should be burdened by those delicate, intuitive and creative individuals who detest "practical" work and would simply like to do whatever they want and not have to bear the costs of their choices.

Now, economics tells us that when a person anticipates the opportunity cost being less than the utility they receive in return and all their other more important desires have been satisfied, they will purchase that good/service. They will engage in that action.

You also need to consider that "what individuals value" is not necessarily the same as what their values are derived from. Value can exist and be indirectly benefited from even by people who don't specifically recognize it. Thus by your reasoning we could say many average people are also parasites for choosing to contribute in a manner that happens to be unrelated to some portion of the total benefits they receive.

You speak too ambiguously: Are they contributing by engaging in transactions with other individuals and people indirectly benefits by their participation in the division of labour? Or are they contributing by some sort of involvement with an abstraction? I think you also have some sort of strange conception about how wealth is created and transferred within society.

No. They're parasites because they wish to live at the expense of others.

Premise: To make your ideal world, where people don't have to work for what they want; they can simply study what ever they want and not bear the costs or consequences; they are "allocated" their desired position and can live with content and happiness because of this role.

Question Proposed: Who is going to pay for it? Who will bear the costs? Who will bear the consequences? Who is the sacrifice? Who is Atlas?