/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>262
Taken freely from Bertrand Russell; The path to happyness lies in the organised reduction of labour. This seems to be what Fuller (of whom I have never heard before) is saying too. And I agree with both of them.

The concept of work has the prime purpose of maintaining a certain status quo, with the further task of expanding or improving it. The status quo os usually a society, and being born into it, we are expected to not only partake in it, but to further it too. This makes sense, since societies tend to be beneficial (so say the contractualists) and thus aiding the cause of society is essentially aiding oneself.

But this is vastly different from what we have today. In my country, and I assume almost everywhere, work is glorified for its own sake. Never mind literally "making a living" (i.e. paying the toll for being alive), working is a lifestyle, and it is THE lifestyle to have. Very few people actively enjoy their work, but it's the way to spend 75+% of ones waking life.
While this stance is barely excusable if there's necessity to work, as is the case when a person is reliant on an income, it is percieved and portraied as a benefit to all people involved. And I'm not so sure about that.

>>293
>>262
Returning the society's favour of providing a decent environment, people generate money and give a part of that to the state. For this to make sense, the place they generate money from is independent of the state, a private endeavour, where those with the means to afford it can provide platforms of labour, hopefully garnering them profits and allowing them to return a fraction of what they make to the people working there. These profits are said to turn out positive for mankind and, by extension, the society as well, through such things as innovation and improvement of wealth (of a few, potentially dropping down to the less wealthy). This is the system that seems to make sense, only that it's very easily exploitable and already in danger of not being able to support everyone.
The quote mentions the insanity of new jobs, mostly bureaucratic ones, which are consequence of the connection between working and life. We need jobst not only to fill our days, but to fill our stomachs. And it becomes secondary whether or not any of this turns out beneficial. This perversion is apparent in jobs that systematically destroy things that other people with other jobst create, or in cases where products are deliberately faultily designed in order to allow more production and more labour.
But that's not where it stops. A state, even if it doesn't always do this, is functionally obliged to care for the citizens it needs to govern. So a state needs to make sure the stomachs of the people are full, even if it goes past its means. Private enterprises do not have this problem. They need efficacy, they need profit, and as long as something is profitable, the side effect of providing a person with the substance for their life becomes secondary. Many jobs can be taken over my machinery these days, even more abstract ones like science and teaching. Pretty much all manual labor could be replaced by machines, which would result in a tremendous rise in unemployment. These machines, relieving us of hard work, being more profitable and overall faster, should be a blessing to mankind and societies, but instead we are stuck in-between. Getting rid of jobs comes very close to blocking a persons financial development in life, in extreme cases like cutting off their vitals. This is a problem for the state, not for enterprises though, since protection and assurance of a certain minimal standard of life is task of the state. But the state gets it's wealth to a great deal from the people it's returning the help to, and they in turn generate it in private economy, the very thing now inaccessable to them.

>>294
A system like this cannot maintain itself. It either abandons the notion of comfort and tranquility as pinnacles of a successful life, or revels in a dangersously darwinian idea of survival of the most fortunate. And this seems to be the very connotation that "making a living" has. It's forced labour in order to ensure living in a world that provides a platform to live on. And that labour is very much not stable, not guaranteed, not secure, not lasting. At least potentially not.

I myself oppose the idea that people owe something when they are born. But alone the fact that most land belongs to someone makes it nigh impossible to escape a certain burden of debt from birth. If I could, I would say that all basic needs should be provided absolutely conditionless to all citizens of any state. If that's financially unfeasable, then the infrastructure for this enterprise could be maintained by the benefactors thereof, viz. the people. Necessity of labour in order to exist would be gone as far as possible (except for directly accounting for the basic needs nobody seriously opposes against). This would allow people to refuse labour that they consider useless or demeaning. It would allow people to spend their time more flexibly. And of course it would allow people to study more. Not just the beneficial things like sciences, medicine, informatics, but also the 'useless' things such as philsophy. Without being bound to (slavishly) creating wealth for a third party in order to repay the debt brought to them by the society they were born in, they would have the freedom of repaying the debt the direct way, as they go, while having room to either take up a job to while away time and/or further personal wealth, or to lean back and further their thoughts, themselves, their creativity and indulge in a life only minimally bound to struggle.

(I never wrote these thoughts down before, so I'm sure it's a bit muddled. Please let me know if you disagree with anything - which I'm sure you will. From discussions I gather this opinion is not a particularly popular one.)

Working gives one a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. It doesn't have to be alienating drudgery.

I have worked a job a drudgery in the past and I am now doing a doctorate in philosophy - my life hasn't become more interesting, nor have I become significantly happier because of this change.

It seams that Fuller is romanticizing intellectualism and neglecting the fact that many people do find some fulfillment with their work even when others find it to be dull.

For me; my ideal life would be one where I have a job that allows me to utilize what I have already learnt, learn something new and have accomplishment through helping myself and others (probs public sector work) combined with a healthy social life.

>>316
>Working gives one a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment

Go tell the min wage mexican burger flipper at mcdonalds down the street that. He'll laugh in your face and spit a few chunks of burrito.