Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

tranquilmonkey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 265 posts

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#241

Post by genegc2 »

brokenmachine wrote: post #231
triangleman wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start small. I am going to refer you to some scripture but I am not asking you to accept it a priori as truth, only to investigate whether there may be any truth in it. Hebrews 11:6 says that he who comes to God "must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him". Essentially what I am asking you to believe is the truth of "seek and ye shall find"... that it is possible to find, prov…

What a load of codswallop. I find it insulting to my intelligence to be asked to believe something with no evidence, and when I ask for evidence to be told that I shouldn't be asking. If god is willing to prevent Evil, but not able, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent. If he is able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin about those issues. I'll just summarize my very limited understanding - my personal approach. My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven, I'm forced to continue to grow in my understanding, and humbly continue the journey. And I have to make a deliberate choice to believe - based on the evidence I see and experience in my life. Also, since it can't be proven, I can't convince you to accept it - you have to do your own searching - you have to make your choice. I believe that this is by design, and I find it to be beautiful.

The problem of pain and suffering is a lot harder to address in a brief comment. Nothing I can say in a few short lines will be very satisfying, unless you already believe or are wanting to believe. Here are a few thoughts...

Pain and suffering are not good in and of themselves, but good can come from them.

In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill - and then what would be the point to life anyway?

My level of understanding will always be limited. I have to approach this journey with humility. I can know a lot, but I can't know everything. I will work to alleviate pain and suffering where I can, and trust that in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#242

Post by ajuc »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #159
ajuc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as America is the most happy-obsessed culture in the world in my experience. Yup. I blame their constitution.

That's the Declaration of Independence you're thinking of, I believe.

Right, my bad.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#243

Post by ajuc »

genegc2 wrote: post #241
brokenmachine wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of codswallop. I find it insulting to my intelligence to be asked to believe something with no evidence, and when I ask for evidence to be told that I shouldn't be asking. If god is willing to prevent Evil, but not able, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent. If he is able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin about those issues. I'll just summarize my very limited understanding - my personal approach. My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven, I'm forced to continue to grow in my understanding, and…

> In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill

Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer?

> and then what would be the point to life anyway?

There's no "point to life". It's a sandbox game you have ~80 years to experience. Enjoy, while you can, and don't be a dick.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#244

Post by FungalRaincloud »

apatters wrote: post #194
triangleman wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way? Are you sure, based on what the parent wrote? Perhaps he was not clear about the difference between "finding meaning" and "finding your own meaning", but few people are clear about that. A search for meaning, personal or otherwise, does not necessarily lead to hedonism--to get there you have to throw out all kinds of useful things, and it doesn't really get you very far, and eventually life loses meaning…

No, he's right. If you abandon the notion that there's anything which possesses an intrinsic or higher meaning, it's almost inevitable you'll end up gratifying your most basic instincts first because they're the strongest. At least until they're sated. The only thing I don't get is why more people don't do it. People walk around with all sorts of hangups and narratives about why they're denying themselves and they ta…

I think this issue arises from fundamentally western ideas about what it is that are our most basic human instincts. We have certain instinctual needs, which, I'll agree, would seem to imply a hedonistic lifestyle when considered alone. However, many of these things balance themselves out. As an example, we have an evolutionary need to be healthy, viable mates, but we also have an evolutionary need to consume delicious food. Overindulging one need would inherently cause the other need to not be met. I would also add that the need to express kindness and compassion, and the need for positive social interaction seem to also be instinctual, and do drive us to act in ways that would not necessarily fit with a hedonistic lifestyle.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#245

Post by genegc2 »

ajuc wrote: post #243
genegc2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin about those issues. I'll just summarize my very limited understanding - my personal approach. My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven, I'm forced to continue to grow in my understanding, and…

> In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer? > and then what would be the point to life anyway? There's no "point to life". It's a sandbox game you have ~80 years to experience. Enjoy, while you can, and don't be a dick.

> Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer?

If our choices were reduced to those which could not cause pain and suffering, life would resemble a game; our choices would lack any consequence. Thankfully, life is much more than a game.

> and don't be a dick

This advice is curious to me. How do you derive this from your beliefs? I can understand you saying "don't be a dick just to be a dick", because that would cause pointless suffering. But if I can advance my own wealth or happiness by being a dick in such a way that I can reasonably avoid retribution, why shouldn't I?

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#246

Post by sireat »

coldtea wrote: post #237
sireat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are back to Ecclesiastes without the tacked on Epilogue but with a touch of Blade Runner. I have two problems with this realization(not that it makes it any less true). First, anything truly goes then and we are back to "might is right". Any state/laws some subset of humanity creates is no less right than any other subset of humanity which includes various levels of psychopaths. First problem is not such a bad one…

> Unfortunately there is so little time and no time for any grand works unless you already showed some promise at early age (ala Thompson). Well, there are several artists that started out of nowhere in their 30s or 40s or even 50+. Especially in novel writing, this has been quite common.

I'd love to hear more about great artists/makers/scientists etc who started in their 30s/40s.

Only one who comes to mind as far as writing goes is Chandler, but he must have done his own share of writing (oil business in 1920/30s must have required some writing)before that.

Joseph Conrad is another interesting case mastering English in his late 20s.

My premise: To be great you have to perspire early with some talent thrown in.

Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.

Again, I'd love to hear more counterexamples of old age mastery of something started in your 30s.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#247

Post by sireat »

tw04 wrote: post #210
sireat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are back to Ecclesiastes without the tacked on Epilogue but with a touch of Blade Runner. I have two problems with this realization(not that it makes it any less true). First, anything truly goes then and we are back to "might is right". Any state/laws some subset of humanity creates is no less right than any other subset of humanity which includes various levels of psychopaths. First problem is not such a bad one…

Really? Because in my world, life is about doing what makes you happy, as long as you aren't negatively impacting others. If you want to write that great novel: do it. If you want to finish that huge programming project: do it. It may mean sacrificing other things in life to accomplish, but if that's what makes you happy, the sacrifice shouldn't be a big deal. If making that sacrifice is too great, then it isn't what…

The problem in your 40s is that you acutely realize your limitations, you become risk averse, you choose what you are already good at.

So that great novel it is not going to happen unless you have written a fair share of good short stories in your twenties.

That huge programming project again unless you've mastered your chosen language and the domain space, you are just going to be dissapointed.

There are many things that make me happy, but there are no grand plans left.

Trivial example: I took 6 months of daily Duolingo practice in German to keep up with my daughter. I was making some progress but it was slower than hers. It became apparent that unless I dedicated myself fully to study I would not be able to read Grimm's fairy tales much less Kant.

It is as Stephenson wrote: "Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. if my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad."

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#248

Post by sireat »

armitron wrote: post #201
sireat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are back to Ecclesiastes without the tacked on Epilogue but with a touch of Blade Runner. I have two problems with this realization(not that it makes it any less true). First, anything truly goes then and we are back to "might is right". Any state/laws some subset of humanity creates is no less right than any other subset of humanity which includes various levels of psychopaths. First problem is not such a bad one…

You are deluding yourself when you think you actually have a choice. A chaotic dynamical system moving between (or sitting at) attractors doesn't leave much room for Free Will.

Well this is one delusion I am glad I still have.

I can delude myself that I have Free Will by choosing to take a vacation next week. Then I could flip a coin to decide my destination between Singapore and Bangkok.

Sure it was all deterministic at some level but the illusion was good enough for me.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#249

Post by coldtea »

sireat wrote: post #246
coldtea wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately there is so little time and no time for any grand works unless you already showed some promise at early age (ala Thompson). Well, there are several artists that started out of nowhere in their 30s or 40s or even 50+. Especially in novel writing, this has been quite common.

I'd love to hear more about great artists/makers/scientists etc who started in their 30s/40s. Only one who comes to mind as far as writing goes is Chandler, but he must have done his own share of writing (oil business in 1920/30s must have required some writing)before that. Joseph Conrad is another interesting case mastering English in his late 20s. My premise: To be great you have to perspire early with some talent…

Bukowski published his first novel at 51. He had written a couple of stories and poems before his 30s, but spend most of the next 1.5 decade drunk and not writing.

Burroughs published his first noval at 39. He had just written a few articles until then.

Walt Whitman first published a poetry book at 36.

Toni Morrison wrote her first novel at 39.

Bram Stoker wrote Dracula around 50. He worked as a public servant before, and wrote theatre reviews.

Anthony Burgess (of Clockwork Orange fame) first published at 39.

Raymond Chandler worked as a businessman (in the oil industry IIRC) and started writing novels at 51.

Wallace Stevens, celebrated poet, worked office jobs, and first published at 35, but his best work was done in his 50s. He went on to win the Pulitzer price at 75.

Beatrix Potter wrote her first book at 35.

Jules Verne, who went on to write tons of classics, started at 35.

Ian Flemming worked as a spy in Britain, and only started writing his books (James Bond) when he was 44.

In another genre, Martin Rev released his first album (with Suicide) at 39, Leonard Cohen started as a singer/songwriter at 33, and Vi Subversa (nee Frances Sokolov), started singing and performing as the vocalist of the influential Poison Girls punk band at the tender age of 44, and as a mother of two.

>Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.

That presupposes that you need to. Modern painters don't need to learn to learn to paint like Michalangelo to express themselves (and many don't know), modern musicians don't need to go into classical training or even know the scales (e.g. somebody like DJ Shadow and tons of others).

As for writing, it can be more about sensitivity to details and having an interesting story or viewpoint to express, than mastering some genre rules. One can learn most about writing from having read a lot (which is also what most writers advise young writers to do).

Kind of like how you don't need to study CS and study TAoCP to learn to program and write something useful. There are stories that picked up programming later in life and went on to write succesful apps and open source projects.

Re: Hunter S. Thompson on Finding Your Purpose (1958)

#250

Post by brokenmachine »

genegc2 wrote: post #241
brokenmachine wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of codswallop. I find it insulting to my intelligence to be asked to believe something with no evidence, and when I ask for evidence to be told that I shouldn't be asking. If god is willing to prevent Evil, but not able, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent. If he is able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin about those issues. I'll just summarize my very limited understanding - my personal approach. My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven, I'm forced to continue to grow in my understanding, and…

> My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven

Actually evidence is proof. You're just writing a bunch of words. All your mysterious and humble, "can't know everything...", "learn for yourself" patronizing garbage that doesn't make sense. blah blah blah.

How exactly do you decide which particular ridiculous idea to believe, when you don't need any proof?

> in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it.

That's also codswallop.

See, I've worked in health, and to me that sounds like exactly what someone who has been in the privileged position to never have witnessed or experienced real suffering would write as a flippant, shallow and superficial expression to discount how much needless suffering there actually is in the world.

When you see young children struck down with horrible diseases that cause constant pain and ruin the lives of their families, for no reason but an unlucky genetic abnormality, I can't consolidate that with your idea of "a glorious end", and it's also impossible for me to not attribute blame to a supposedly omnipotent being that would allow such needless suffering when they presumably have the ability to prevent it.

So take your godly rubbish and go and parrot it to the rest of the congregation in your echo chamber of useless rhetoric, and give up on trying to convert reasonable people.

Post reply on HN