Live data from Hacker News

Most lives are lived by default

raptitude.com

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#111
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The idea is to act as if the outcome of what you were working on was the most important thing in the world to you, but to place no value on the actual outcome itself.

So, I should work to be a great spouse (say), but not care whether I actually achieve that outcome? Why not work to achieve things of value precisely because they are of value to you?

Because you won't always achieve them. If you value the end result, it will be all the more disappointing if you fail to achieve it.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#112
Having moved 17 times, (3 times since age 30, and another coming in a few weeks), there is tremendous opportunity cost to moving. On the plus side, I am confident that I want to live in coastal California. I am confident I can make friends wherever I am and I enjoy a large network of friends. But I am tired of discovering the best pizza, best grocers, best place to get gas, best routes and detours to work. I am tired of my kids being stressed out in a new school, my wife looking for an optimal work-life balance. I wish I could raise my kids within 1000 miles of any family. I am glad for having lived a varied life so far, but in some ways I am amazed how unvaried varied can be, and the opportunity cost of that variety.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#113
post #68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Puritan work ethic came out of debt; it came from the sanctification of work.

Could be. I have no idea where it came from or why. I'm very interested in what it means today, and how I choose to incorporate it into my life. That's why I really enjoy learning from people that follow it to a large extent, and those that don't.

>I have no idea where it came from or why.

It was very likely a product of the Reformation, and almost certainly had nothing to do with debt. Specifically, the ethic arose from the philosophies of Luther and Calvin in the 16th century. Prior to L&C, the dominant Catholic line held that hard work was a means to achieve salvation. Work was punishment. If you weren't performing good works you would go to hell. Working hard to serve your god? Good: perhaps you will be saved. But don't work too hard, because hoarding wealth is a sin. Pay your excess forward to the Church and it will help your cause in the end.

Luther didn't exactly turn this conception on its head but altered it, which opened the doors for later change. He believed that work was good because it served not only the individual but also the social whole. The main expression of this was a dissolution of occupation-based social hierarchies. For example Luther rejected that something like agricultural work was inherently less valuable than a monastic calling. All work had value, and all work had equal value in the eyes of God. The main thing is that each person was called to work by God, and to work was to exercise your noble calling. This is basically an inversion of the concept of work as punishment.

Calvin both carried Luther further and branched out. His was probably the first interpretation of Christianity to state that maximizing profit from one's work was not only good but also required. This wasn't a call to maximize profit in pursuit of an easy life, since even rich folk had a duty to perform hard work. Rather the duty was to improve the Kingdom of God (and one's society) through investment. This doesn't mean philanthropy or giving to the poor, rather something like modern capitalism where an individual's investment (sometimes, often) produces positive effects for those around him. Devoted, hard workers help to maintain a cohesive social whole, which in turn mitigates the chaos and disorder that might stem from idleness.

Underlying Luther's and to a greater extent Calvin's philosophies is the notion of predestination. Dominant Catholic thought posited that people were born sinners but could earn salvation over a lifetime. Predestination rejected this, stating instead that God chooses the saved at birth. That is, you're either saved or you're not out of the womb, and there's nothing you can do about it. During your life, you can't know whether or not you are one of the elect. However you sure as heck want to be, so you do your best to live in the way you think the elect would live. If you succeeded, this could be perceived as evidence of your having been chosen to be saved. Hence the social drive to work extremely hard and produce as much as possible.

The above is probably a bit rambling and somewhat of a bastardization, but it's generally correct. Given that, I'm not surprised that in a historically Catholic region you came across a very Catholic take on work, which is at odds with the conception of work you're used to in historically Protestant America.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#114
post #37
post #30

The scariest thing in being happy is how much of our everyday lives turn into meaningless pile of deprecated trade-offs. Things that you thought meant something for you actually don't. Things that you thought you'd keep for life actually turn out to be nonimportant. People you considered close were just vehicles for you: you gave them that love you didn't know how to give to yourself. And finally, things that you so…

I am not trying to troll you; I mean this question honestly: Why do you care so much about being happy? I know that is the default goal of most people, but it seems rather like chasing gold at the end of the rainbow when you have no reason to think that the gold exists. Do you know of anyone anywhere ever who has spent the majority of their time 100% or even 80% happy? Was this person a holder of a medical marijuana…

Thanks for your point.

I do admit that happiness is an ambiguous word: for some people it's about merely feeling good and for some people happiness is just a side-effect from the realization that what you have now is all you can actually claim to have—the past and the future don't count. The conversation started from happiness so I sort of bridged over with that word.

I care about living my own life, not somebody else's, and making choices in life for reasons I'm aware of instead of for reasons I don't. At least for me, happiness comes mostly about facing the facts of your life and accepting them.

Being stoned isn't happiness, it's disconnectedness. Living a happy life isn't about that it always feels good but about that it does good. But in the long term that, too, actually gives a good feeling as well.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#115
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an alternative spelling in German, sorry for the confusion. "Google could not find that quote in any translation for Meditations" That's because I translated it into English from a German translation of Meditations ^^ here's the same thing without that extra step: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aurelius_bkvii... If therefore it be a thing external that causes thy grief, know, that it is not that p…

Thank you for the education. Is dropping the ius/us (I forget the term high school latin was a long time ago) a common way of translating roman names to german?

It seems to be common in English too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_poetry

Ovid, Virgil, Horace...

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#116
I find myself strongly disagreeing with the "world view" behind this post - though the common sensical statement "don't go with defaults all the time" is great, the post exudes an ego-centrical way of viewing life - make choices based on what you think will make YOU happy.

The "killer quote" that pushed me over the edge to post this was: "It could be a major change, like getting rid of your spouse" .... seriously? "Til death do us part...or I feel like you're not making me happy"?

I do not believe true joy is found in selectively surrounding myself with people that make me happy and "eliminating" all others. In fact, to act as if true joy is "just around the corner" if we would simply make the right changes like learning how to surf is a dangerous illusion to give.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#117
post #2

I don't like these kinds of posts, because they suggest that happiness is something just within our grasp, if only we did the exact right thing to grasp it. In this case, it's suggesting happiness comes in part from questing to find major change X in your life that will change everything. But I think that's actually the cause of a lot of unhappiness. It's a perpetual "grass is always greener" situation. Say you go on…

I directly disagree with this post and take a naturalist approach. People aren't unhappy because they want more; they are unhappy because their basic needs aren't met. And by needs I don't mean material needs, but basic self realization needs. We actually need very little to be happy, but people now live their lives in way they were not designed to be. As a primordial tribesmen, all people needed were the love and ca…

I don't think that being recognized for success is a basic human (psychological) need. It certainly isn't mine. Sure, I like to be successful in what I do, but I only need internal recognition for that, i.e. people using something I built and being happy using it, not external (people actually thanking ME for having built it).

I think longing for external recognition is a sign of a deeply wounded soul, of a person lacking the most fundamental self-love and self-esteem.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#118
post #2

I don't like these kinds of posts, because they suggest that happiness is something just within our grasp, if only we did the exact right thing to grasp it. In this case, it's suggesting happiness comes in part from questing to find major change X in your life that will change everything. But I think that's actually the cause of a lot of unhappiness. It's a perpetual "grass is always greener" situation. Say you go on…

Maybe you shoudn't be looking for the best city to live in, just one better than the default choice... Improving just a bit on most of your defaults would compound to a great improvement in your life!

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#119

It's amazing how defensive some of these posts are because the poster has chosen to live a life by default. I once thought I wanted to climb the corporate ladder, to buy stuff, toys. More, more, more... I made my way into software management back in 2008. I was absolutely miserable. The routine, wake up to an alarm, get ready, run to work, work on someone else's ideas, have to listen to someone tell me what to do. Wh…

To your list of key things, I'd add what you described in the first half of your comment: find where you want to be in your professional life. Not where you work or anything alike, but which role (in the chain of command) you want to fulfil.

I know for myself that filling the boss role wouldn't suit me, yet I cannot let things get decided without being involved. The role I'd like to fulfil is not the boss but more like the second in command: still a good impact without as much stress (theoretically). I believe it also depends on the size of things. I wouldn't mind being my own boss, but not being someone else boss. That's a reason why I wouldn't dare to start up something from myself.

Also, I found the same thing about myself concerning the fact that after doing the same thing for several weeks, changes are needed. The time span before needing change and the size of the change required differs, but I believe every one feels this need at some point. Personally, just staying curious and learning news things all the time helps me with that. It's enough to keep me going on the same job for almost two years.

Concerning the key things, most of them could be generalized and should be followed by most people. As for the 16th rule, if it was about destination, we would all be using shortcuts and be there in five minutes.

Re: Most lives are lived by default

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremes at either end are bad. Somehow the majority of HN hasn't figured this out.

That doesn't seem correct either. Extremes at either end are where entrepreneurs tend to live. Most people have to be willing to be poor, lose everything, and fail miserably in order to have a chance to be rich and live the life they want. This life obviously doesn't appeal to everyone, and many entrepreneurs manage to keep a balanced life. But at some point they'll get outmaneuvered by the ones who move faster and j…

You assume most people/entrepreneurs want to be rich and have a lifestyle.

And it sounds like your view of the process cones from only examining high profile winners. It's like basing your opinion of music or sports as a career based on the highly improbable success of the musicians and athletes you've heard of.

I imagine that there are some people, especially in finance, who do what they do purely for money and lifestyle, but the "entrepreneurs" I admire would do what they do for free.

Post reply on HN