Live data from Hacker News

The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

thestorytellers.com

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#101
Wow. That's a great response by everyone. I posted this link after finding out of its existence when I asked ChatGPT if there was a similar story to my Dad's anecdote he used to tell. My dad past away and I always kept thinking about this story. ChatGPT recognized and point me to the other stories similar to his. Here it is:

""" An elderly man was strolling when he noticed a young man lying under a tree, appearing relaxed. Curious, the elderly man asked him why he was resting and doing nothing. The young man responded with a question of his own, "Why should I do anything?" The elderly man, slightly puzzled, answered that by doing something, the young man could become rich. The young man inquired, "Why do I need to be rich?" The elderly man explained that being rich would allow him to have everything he wanted and ultimately do nothing. The young man responded with a smile, "Well, I'm already doing nothing. """

Also I asked ChatGPT about different philosophical aspect of the story:

""" This anecdote touches upon several philosophical themes, including the nature of happiness, the purpose of work, and the concept of wealth. Here are some angles we can consider:

1. Hedonism: The young man's attitude can be seen as hedonistic, as he focuses on enjoying the present moment and experiencing pleasure by doing nothing. This philosophy prioritizes personal satisfaction, suggesting that happiness is found in the pursuit of pleasurable experiences.

2. The Paradox of Work and Wealth: The elderly man's response reflects a societal belief that hard work and accumulating wealth are necessary for a fulfilling life. However, the young man challenges this belief by demonstrating that he has already achieved a state of relaxation and contentment without wealth. This highlights the paradox that people often work hard to achieve a state of happiness or relaxation that they could have experienced without the need for wealth or material possessions.

3. Simple Living: The young man's perspective can be seen as an endorsement of a minimalist or simple living philosophy, which values experiences and well-being over material possessions. This viewpoint suggests that happiness can be found in a simple, unencumbered lifestyle that prioritizes personal fulfillment over the pursuit of wealth.

4. The Myth of Sisyphus: The anecdote can be seen as a variation on the story of Sisyphus, a character from Greek mythology who is condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down each time. This story is often used as a metaphor for the human struggle to find meaning and purpose in life. In this anecdote, the young man has seemingly found his own sense of meaning by rejecting the common belief that wealth and success are necessary for happiness.

5. Taoism and Wu Wei: The young man's attitude can be linked to the Taoist concept of wu wei, which means "non-action" or "effortless action." This philosophy emphasizes the importance of living in harmony with the natural flow of life and not forcing change or action. By lying under the tree and doing nothing, the young man could be seen as embodying the concept of wu wei.

6. The Pursuit of Happiness: The anecdote raises the question of what it means to be happy and how to achieve happiness. Both the elderly man and the young man have different perspectives on what is necessary for happiness. This can lead to a broader discussion on the nature of happiness and the various ways individuals seek to attain it.

These are just a few philosophical angles that can be derived from this anecdote. The story serves as a starting point for deeper discussions on the meaning of life, happiness, and the value of work and wealth in modern society.

"""

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#102
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a statistic saying that top 10% of income earners pay something like 80% of all income taxes (not exact numbers but you get the gist).

Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income. In a society where few people earned more than Nx the lowest (pick your own N), this distribution of tax origin would look very different. Think of it a different way: suppose a government explicitly targets being able to spend 23% of GDP on government (i.e. publically) chosen goals. How does it collect 23% of GDP? Well, if everyone earned precisel…

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income.

Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation.

I've also lived under communism, where they ignored this uneven contribution and tried to squash the incomes uniformly. The result was quite predictable: we were equally starving, of course. Except the nomenklatura, but that's another story.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#103
post #2

A few years later, the fisherman gets an expensive, debilitating disease and dies penniless and destitute and alone. But at least he had fun before that.

Yeah healthcare is the one thing I want financial security for. Big house, nice car, expensive food is all whatever, but I have some weird paranoia that in the next 30-40 years some longevity treatment will start rolling out or I will develop some condition that I will be priced out of.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#104
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably some ancient Indian tale - because most of the wandering tales we're using today come from ancient Indian stories (by way of Persians, Arabs, Greeks, etc. - as the trade goes, do the stories). If that's the case, the origin is probably impossible to determine.

[flagged]

Probably not. I mean, I believe some guy wrote it 60 years ago in Germany, but likely many, many other people wrote the same a long time before.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#105
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government services obviously require a resource surplus (and some mechanism to direct that surplus to paying for these services, of which taxation is the most common one). If everybody are chill fishermen, there's no surplus - there's no reason for the fisherman to create one.

Surplus can come in the form of a small number of large surpluses, or a large number of small ones. The fisherman is quite capable of being part of the latter example.

He is capable, but the whole point of the story is that he doesn't want to use this capability, and is lauded for that.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#106
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government services obviously require a resource surplus (and some mechanism to direct that surplus to paying for these services, of which taxation is the most common one). If everybody are chill fishermen, there's no surplus - there's no reason for the fisherman to create one.

The idea that the archetypical businessman in this story is ultimately necessary to provide for government spending is a pretty unique take.

No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his father was a businessman, namely the idol trader. There was no word "businessman" back then, but the concept of trade - which necessitates the surplus (you need something to trade) and follows from it (you need to do something with that surplus) existed in the history of every civilization and is widely covered in virtually every historical work, of course. If anything, the idea that we could ignore all the civilization history and go back to hunter-gatherer subsistence model is something that would be "a pretty unique take". It sounds good when we're sitting in our comfortable chairs, with bellies well filled and our other needs taken care of, and wax fashionably nostalgic about "simpler times". But somehow most people moved away from this paradise as soon as they were able to. I wonder why?

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest parallel might be how native americans lived for thousands of years subsisting on the land. The level of sustainable living they maintained was extraordinary. Everything from 3 sisters farming, to fish stocking in lakes, to controlled burns to prevent wildfires... they found a harmony with their environment to just live enough, and no more. > How cruel the whites are: their lips are thin, their noses shar…

Don’t forget the raping and pillaging of other tribes when times got tough. Very few of the tribes in the more barren west lived on land bountiful enough for this utopian fantasy.

Whites did all that too, plus raping the entire world.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#108
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the archetypical businessman in this story is ultimately necessary to provide for government spending is a pretty unique take.

No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his fa…

David Graeber and David Wengrow would like a word with you regarding your simplistic, monotonic version of human history.

"The Dawn of Everything" covers, with multiple redundant stories, why this concept of "the way human civilizations evolved" is wrong. That doesn't mean that none of them did, but absilutely not all of them. It certainly wasn't a straight path from hunter-gatherer to more or less anywhere in the world.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#109
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income. In a society where few people earned more than Nx the lowest (pick your own N), this distribution of tax origin would look very different. Think of it a different way: suppose a government explicitly targets being able to spend 23% of GDP on government (i.e. publically) chosen goals. How does it collect 23% of GDP? Well, if everyone earned precisel…

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income. Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. I've also lived under communism, where they ignored this uneven contribution and tried to squash the incomes uniformly. The result was quite predictable: we were equally starving, of course. Except the nomenklatura, but that's another story.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation.

Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation?

There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from pure commune-style uniformity to contemporary US "capitalism". The only thing that is abundantly clear is that neither of these extremes work all that well for the majority of the people who live under them.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#110
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surplus can come in the form of a small number of large surpluses, or a large number of small ones. The fisherman is quite capable of being part of the latter example.

He is capable, but the whole point of the story is that he doesn't want to use this capability, and is lauded for that.

He doesn't wish to organize his life around maximizing his output.

The entire point of the story is to get people to consider to what extent that makes sense, and under what circumstances.

If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives, it takes a rather compelling argument (and it make even require compelling force) that he should behave otherwise.

Post reply on HN