Guys and gals, go for it or work away?
I'm at a crossroads. I'm still young enough to go back to college and get a degree in philosophy. However, I have low self-esteem and am wondering if I am coherent enough or talented enough to do it. Someone make me feel good and tell me that I would be a great philosopher please? Just kidding... But, do I at least come off as somewhat competent.
I would love to learn more about Wittgenstein and follow in his tracks. But, according to him I am living the life that he would want to. As per one of my previous threads I asked about how academia looks like and wasn't really all that jazzed about walking over other people's heads and the 10:1 dropout rate for doctoral students in philosophy. Am I just being a pussyfoot or should I stick to my very rewarding minimum wage job at a nursery (which I find ideal) and live happily with my mother? It's not a bad life, sleep wake work eat sleep, repeat.
I was thinking about getting a second job, paying off my debts and possibly returning to college once I build up a better work ethic and study habits. I like philosophy; but, I have no way of telling whether I would like it enough to go the whole nine yards with BA->Masters->PhD. By the end of it I would be naturally in deep debt, but, I suppose a very happy and proud person?
Thoughts welcome.
Thanks.
I would love to learn more about Wittgenstein and follow in his tracks. But, according to him I am living the life that he would want to. As per one of my previous threads I asked about how academia looks like and wasn't really all that jazzed about walking over other people's heads and the 10:1 dropout rate for doctoral students in philosophy. Am I just being a pussyfoot or should I stick to my very rewarding minimum wage job at a nursery (which I find ideal) and live happily with my mother? It's not a bad life, sleep wake work eat sleep, repeat.
I was thinking about getting a second job, paying off my debts and possibly returning to college once I build up a better work ethic and study habits. I like philosophy; but, I have no way of telling whether I would like it enough to go the whole nine yards with BA->Masters->PhD. By the end of it I would be naturally in deep debt, but, I suppose a very happy and proud person?
Thoughts welcome.
Thanks.
Comments (202)
I do think changing the structure of your life is more important, as you say developing better work ethic and study habits. Your lack of ambition is clear by your satisfaction in a peaceful life - whilst perhaps to a degree enviable - is dangerous in the long term and would mean that you are one to never take risks and challenge or push yourself, clear by this post with your neediness of others. This could stay with your forever and one day you'll find yourself sitting on a couch with your elderly mother, a box of KFC chicken and a letter from your now ex-wife telling you that she's left you for Harold.
Life is about taking risks, losing everything, gaining, crying, laughing, shocking people, shocking yourself, as long as it is all within the constraints of morality. Be passionate and courageous otherwise you will never really understand philosophy and, you will never really live either.
A couple of points.
I recognize desires as per the Buddhists as the source of suffering. This is a synthetic a priori truth that all sentient beings ought realize.
Living with mom isn't a bad thing and never was. Society imposed some fictitious rule on people that "man" ought move ought from "mother". I suspect this has to do with capitalism, individualism, and consumerism, along with a plethora of unrestricted wants and desires from the daughter or son spewing out.
I am not needy for anyone. I just appreciate the advice and thoughts of this community.
I do not see myself ever having a wife, although the thoughts do return and bother me on the subject. Still thinking if I can have a wife with my current lifestyle or even if I realize the dreams in the OP.
Life is about getting through it. Schopenhauer can expand on that for you.
For making this decision, why do you think it would matter if you'd be a "great philosopher"?
First, the only reasons (and least outside of unusual circumstances) to get a philosophy degree are either:
(a) because you just want to learn about philosophy more in depth--you're passionate about that, and you don't care about practical concerns with the degree,
(b) you're interested in jobs that have non-specific degree requirements--jobs where they just want you to have a bachelor's degree, say, but it doesn't have to be in a specific field, and philosophy is your primary interest as a hobby,
(c) you want to go to grad school for a field where a philosophy bachelor's is considered a good stepping stone--for example, law, or
(d) you want to teach philosophy.
For none of those is there a requirement that you be a "great philosopher." Even with (d), tons of people teaching are just doing the minimum amount of publishing required to keep their job, and those papers are unlikely to make them famous, unlikely to be republished in any anthologies, etc. They're simply good enough to get published in some journal--which really doesn't require that they're very good or interesting, so that the person can meet their research/professional work requirements.
So you do not need to be a great philosopher to pursue a philosophy degree or to wind up teaching philosophy, and you certainly do not need to be a great philosopher for any of the other reasons that you might pursue a philosophy degree.
I don't know that philosophy is the way to financial self-sufficiency, but, to the extent any college degree will suffice, do that and pave your own path and earn your own keep. If you do try to be a philosopher and you fail, at least you'll have tried, as opposed to potting plants and then coming home to mom's meatloaf.
Quoting Hanover
Actually, its a very rewarding job! And, I don't come home stressed and angry about dealing with assholes and the such. Living with mother isn't bad, I enjoy it. It was hard when I was younger and enamored with doing a whole wide range of things and such as moving to a different country and bla bla bla.
But, you know, living in a retirement home might be what awaits you given that you're so against being dependent on someone or something.
Be careful - seeming lack of ambition can be the mask for the greatest of ambitions. The thing with great ambitions (unlike puny ambitions) is that they cannot be fulfilled very easily (and it's stupid to try when failure is guaranteed), so people having them, often seem to be doing nothing from the outside - not even attempting to do something. In Chinese culture there has always been a word for such a person - they are called sleeping dragons... silently waiting, unknown to anyone, for the opportune moment. It's not known when the opportune moment will arrive... life doesn't change gradually, life changes in bursts. One day you're a no one, tomorrow you're a God. Look at Trump - in just a second he became from clown into President, while others have been laboring their entire lives trying to do that and failing. Hitler suddenly arose out of nothing and became the supreme leader of Nazi Germany. Steve Jobs was a druggy in India, before he was CEO of Apple. Ghandi was just a simple lawyer in South Africa before he became the Father of India. Nobody heard of Jesus when he was 25! Success comes fast when it comes. And one only loses it when they rush after it.
Quoting TimeLine
I never did anything by taking risks. I can probably say that I've never taken a single risk in my life. People from the outside may think I took risks, but in truth, I never did. Even my driving exam, people around me were pushing me to go and take it after I finished my driving school, but I couldn't... what was the point of going and failing? I waited for one year in fact, just when my driving school was about to expire, until I finally took it. Everyone was laughing at me and calling me coward - even my mother at that time - because I wasn't like others to go and fail time and time again. But I'm the one who passed it from the first time - unlike some other people who took it even over 10 times till they passed. Only losers risk - winners never risk, that's why they never lose ;) :P
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah not to worry - in 30 years time, when I become President, I'll also write a letter to her, telling her how she left the man who was about to become the leading man of the nation. Then we'll see who the real loser is. :P
Quoting TimeLine
I have a motto in life - it says "Forget winning, make sure you never lose" - on top of that, I have another - "Don't listen to the masses" - recovering from loss is more difficult than winning itself. Avoiding loss is always a priority over winning.
Quoting TimeLine
Who cares? Really, who cares? Once you realise that no one cares, not even you, you can renounce whatsoever is troubling you. Really, if you never leave the walls of your house, until you die, has your life been wasted? Absolutely not - when you die, you die, that's the end, doesn't matter that you were President or you were the beggar on the corner of the street. Relax! The real secret is that only the man or woman who has completely renounced winning the world, only that man or woman can actually turn around and win it - everyone else has already lost before they've even tried. Their ambition has killed them. Only those who have conquered their ambitions can fulfil them - it's a paradox, but it is true.
Oh yeah, this unscrupulous prick is back :-} And what are you Hanover, pray tell me? You're supporting yourself, but what use is that? There's nothing great about that - even the taxi driver does that. You have settled for a mediocre life - you'll probably never be Prime Minister, President, a great writer, a famous artist, or anything great. Just another taxi driver supporting himself ;)
Quoting Hanover
Let me say that again, you're no different than a taxi driver. People with big ambitions aren't satisfied with petty things. What you call great - supporting yourself - is just another petty thing. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
Whether you are in a crossroads, a crosswalk, or crosshairs is hard to say, but you definitely need to get moving. PhD? You don't have a BA in underwater basket weaving (that's an old cliché) yet, so it's premature for you to be worrying about years spent in graduate school getting a doctorate in philosophy.
Get a life! Whether you are working in a plant nursery or a infant nursery doesn't make much difference: Neither plants nor infants will disturb your low self-esteem. People build up self-esteem on the basis of actual, mostly small, accomplishments. Here's a 5 year plan: get a second job and/or a better job, pay off your debts, and move the hell out of your mother's house. Your mother may be a saint, but do your mother a favor. One of the small accomplishments you can achieve is figuring out how to support yourself on your own. You might find that being closer to debt-free and living on your own would do wonders for your self esteem.
you give every appearance of being quite intelligent. Put that brain to work on solving your life-challenges. Job, debt, independent living, self-esteem, a career path.
About which: go back to college. If you have absolutely no idea what you want to do with your life, it's about time you started to figure that out. People without specific plans should major in liberal arts fields which are considered "generally useful". Literature, philosophy, history, mathematics, etc. Stay away from exotica like Sanskrit and Gender Studies.
If you decide that you don't want to go to college, then you had better get good at making money the old fashioned way (by working for it). You need to earn enough to support yourself now and in the future -- so you have to make a decent yearly income.
Be glad that you have a decent brain between your ears. It's time to put it to more use. You strike me as an intelligent fellow who has not "engaged with life" yet. This is a common enough problem--you are not alone here--but YOU need to "get engaged with life". You need to get your ass on the bicycle and start peddling toward something specific.
Quoting Question
Good - time is one's biggest asset! One should only start taking big risks when their time is running out, that's when it can start paying off. Until then, slow down with the risks - you have more to lose and less to gain.
Quoting Question
Okay so that's what you have to address. Look for ways to increase your self esteem. Learn something - it can be anything - choose a skill. Learn it, and become the best in it from everyone you know. Initially you'll feel like no way you can learn it. But you can - remember your most important asset - time. You have a lot of time. You don't have to learn it today. But if you practice it every day for 2 years, you're going to be an expert, like it or not. I called myself an expert on web-development and database management before I'd even designed my own website/database! >:O Most experts out there are fakes to begin with. People put on their CVs that they speak German because they did one semester in school - they can barely speak 5 words in it. It's actually pathetic - they're all damned liars. I have a friend who is a qualified lawyer, but he's actually completely incapable on legal matters (I know because I've tried to use him, even paid him, and he's still failed me - I had to learn the law myself!). And yet he practices law >:O ! I've seen senior engineers who know fuck all about how a building works - I worked under them in fact >:O The truth is most people don't even have a clue what they're doing. It's all a show of appearances - it's not hard to start winning if you stop being tricked by the appearances. The appearances are just there to prevent you from getting involved in the activity - to make you think it's too hard. Ignore the appearances, I know it's hard.
Quoting Question
That's not a bad idea - however - an even better idea is learning a few skills which pay more. Anything in IT pays a lot, and you can do it from a computer :P If you don't like that, think about practical skills that you could build on that you already have. Go to evening courses - there's evening courses for how to operate gas boilers to how to sell real estate to God knows what. Focus on educating and building your skills.
Quoting Question
I'd say get enough money, pay your debts off, and only then do it.
Quoting Question
"If you can have a wife" is obviously answered by yes - I've seen some pretty darn strange things that would be a lot more stranger than a man like you having a wife. I think - to be entirely fucking honest with you - that you stand to have a better wife than most men out there, because in your aloneness you have developed the quality of spirit that could attract such a soul.
'Pussyfoot' is a meaningless concept based on the mistaken notion that people are under some obligation to achieve big things with impacts that reverberate around the world. I blame this notion on the Parable of the Talents, which I find one of the meanest, most vindictive parables in the new testament (it's as if it were written by a Trump speechwriter or a Rand acolyte, although I doubt Trump has ever read it).
Also, there is nothing wrong with living with your mother. Leaving one's parents at an early age is a modern development. Until recently, people didn't leave until they became partnered and started their own family. In fact, earlier still, people lived in tribes based on extended families, so they didn't really leave even then. In non-AngloSaxon cultures (Chinese and Greek come immediately to mind) young people still tend to live with family until they start their own. So forget the faddish 'must leave as soon as I finish uni or I'm bad' nonsense.
Having dispensed with all that puerile 'must be manly and independent' nonsense, you can now turn to the only question that matters: what will make you, and others happy? The usual reason to reach for something more difficult and risky despite the fact that it is more uncomfortable in the short term is the realisation that staying with the current comfort will make you unhappy in the long term - that you will become bored with your job or that you will start to chafe under the financial constraints of low pay. Whether that is the case depends on your psychological makeup, which only you and those that know you well can judge. So reflect, talk to others that know and care about you. Maybe even see a counsellor who, although they will know you less well, can bring professional expertise and experience to the task.
Society needs people with high ambition and people with low ambition and all the ones in between. Remove any segment and it will collapse. The trick is to work out where you can most happily fit. As soon as anybody 'advising' you starts to make personal criticisms, stop listening.
But you're just an asshole. Not in a cool way.
I lived with my mom for a year and a half, at 22/23, and had v bad self-esteem, and some dude who thinks its HILARIOUS to talk about how great they are telling me I was pathetic wouldn't have helped a bit.
You're a third-rate wit (with no ear for meter btw, yr limericks suck. But oh so edgy!) who posts on a philosophy forum in a tone that conveys they're too clever or woke or worldly for the stuff ppl talk about on philosophy forums. How is that any less pathetic? Sad!
Your age?
What metropolitan area do you live in or near to?
How much is your debt?
Age makes a difference. If you are 20, that's one thing; if you are 28, that's something else.
Where you live matters. If you live in a very expensive city but with lots of opportunity, that is one thing. If you live in a low cost dead zone, that is something else.
The size of debt matters. If you owe $3,000, that is one thing; If you owe $30,000, that is something else.
I have had low self esteem and either hopelessly vague or totally impractical plans, as one often does. So I am sympathetic with your situation.
I'm suggesting you make some changes; I'm not suggesting you become someone else. I finished graduate school and spent 40+ years in the work force, much of which totally sucked. I had some good jobs and some bad jobs. Sometimes low pay, simple work, and low stress was worth it.
One don't have to make a huge amount of money, but one does have to be thrifty if one's pay isn't high. I never made more the $35,000 a year, but I lived cheaply most of the time. I was able to save something for retirement -- not enough, but it could have been worse. I didn't live in an expensive area, and I paid the mortgage off as fast as possible. Pair up with somebody -- 2 incomes help a lot, even if neither of them is very high.
Had I to do it over, I would have pursued a purely liberal arts English major, rather than a teaching degree. Total waste of time in my case. I would take the first job more seriously, and would quit the second good job at its peak rather than hang around coasting. I didn't strike while the iron was hot.
But do consider trying my 5 year plan.
Unless your mother would like to get on with her own life without adult children living at home. Maybe she would like to have a torrid romance with the guy next door, for instance. Having an adult son in the next room cramps one's style.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves what I said to Hanover in a thread sometime ago - he frequently thinks he's at the pub talking BS with folks who can barely string two words together... And I said a few more harsh things to him back then, and even got put on notice by the mods >:O - and Hanover put me on ignore ever since, saying that I'm free to think it's because of my greatness if that makes me feel better! >:O What a loser...
I don't know about the past, but it seems like life as we know it just isn't good for one's self-esteem.
That being said, it's not the sort of question that's easy to answer. But once you have the answer, the rest is just paperwork, to try coining a phrase. But I don't think you'll find the answer in the future as much. You can have hopes and dreams and goals you work towards, of course -- but having those is the very answer to your question. So you can't look at which future is better, because you haven't chosen which one is better yet.
Quoting Question
Leftists are quite creative at blaming all their insecurities on Capitalism.
Anyway, listen to Hanover or Charles Murray:
edit:
A bit from his book:
"If you haven’t left home already, it’s time to jump out of the nest, and these days you can’t count on parents to do the right thing and push you out. So jump even if they say you don’t have to. You’ll figure out how to fly before you hit the ground—not well, maybe, but you’ll be flying.
Don’t argue that you can’t find a job that pays enough to support yourself. You can. You just can’t find a job that will support you in the style to which you have been accustomed. So accustom yourself to a new style. Learn to get by on little—prove to yourself how resourceful you can be. Move out. No matter what.
And don’t let your parents support you. It’s okay if Mom or Dad gives you a loan so that you can make the required deposit when you rent an apartment. It’s okay for them to give you birthday and Christmas checks that you and they both realize are not for buying yourself a present but to help keep you afloat. These are advantages that your contemporaries from less affluent families don’t have, and they will retard your transition to full independence to some degree. But, at the least, you need to be paying your own rent, buying your own food, taking care of your own laundry—in a hundred ways, assuming responsibility for yourself. Many of you have parents who, for the most loving reasons, are willing to prolong your adolescence if you let them. Don’t let them."
(...)
"A common and depressing assumption on the part of many college students is that they must stay on the academic rails until they are professionally established—go directly to grad school from college and directly from grad school to a job, as if there were some big rush and even a few years lost would put them catastrophically behind everyone else.
Nonsense. Suppose you intend to retire at sixty-five. If you don’t start your career until you’re thirty, that still gives you thirty-five years to make it professionally. If you can’t make it in thirty-five years, you weren’t going to make it in forty or forty-five.
You probably won’t really have to wait until you’re thirty to begin your vocation. With any luck, you will have identified something you really want to do before then. But in general, think of your twenties as a time for doing the things that you won’t be able to do when you have a spouse and children. There is only the stipulation from the previous tip: You have to support yourself. An essential part of the experience is being on your own.
If you are as ambitious as I was, the real barrier to treating your twenties that way is that you want to be as successful as possible as young as possible. Let me try to persuade you to rethink that."
No, don't.
Listen to somebody who (a) cares about you and (b) knows what they're talking about.
If you graduate and did not receive a full ride or had no savings or other means to pay for your degree, then you will have accumulated many thousands of dollars in student loan debt. If you're not burned out by the end of the four years, then during the winter of your senior year, while finding the time in between finishing papers, you can apply to MA programs. To do so, you will need to pay an obscene sum of money to take the GRE and make sure you have a good writing sample, a well written personal statement, and letters of recommendation from your professors. When researching MA programs, you will notice that there are fewer of them than philosophy BA programs. They come in two flavors: funded and unfunded. Sometimes the funding is good, sometimes bad. If you apply to funded programs, these can be somewhat difficult to get into, because everyone else wants to be funded to go to school. At the MA level, you need not worry too much about finding a department that exactly matches your own research interests, assuming you have any at this point. A general fit is sufficient. Next, you need to determine how many schools you should apply to. You increase your chances of getting accepted by applying to more and decrease them by applying to less. If you apply to, say, ten programs, this could cost you a figure close to a thousand dollars. You will have to pay to send your transcripts, GRE scores, and whatever else programs want from you.
Getting into an MA program is not impossible, however, so let's say you do get accepted somewhere. First, you'll have to move there. Then, for the first year or year and a half, you will being taking classes. Some of them may be interesting, others may not be. In addition to this, you will likely be a teaching or research assistant. In the former case, you will be a grading robot. In the latter case, you will be helping a professor find stuff for his own research. Some programs let their students teach their own classes. This is usually intro to logic or intro to philosophy. Teaching your own class requires a gargantuan amount of prep time, especially when it's your first time. You may not like or be suited to teaching or you may like teaching. Even if you like it, grading is time consuming and procrastination inducing, and you will begin to wonder how it is the students in your class were ever accepted into a university, and indeed, why they were ever brought into this world. In your final year or semester, you will either take comprehensive exams, write a thesis, or do both. Exams require you to [s]skim[/s] read a mountain of books and then regurgitate the ideas in them to your professors in written and oral formats. Writing a thesis requires you to write some fifty odd pages, give or take, on some topic you're interested in and your advisers are interested in, so it's best you nail down this topic early on in the program.
Assuming you graduate, then you can consider PhD programs. When researching them, you will quickly notice that there are even fewer of them than there are MA programs. Some of them may even post ominous statistics about how they receive two hundred applications and only accept five incoming students, causing you to think to yourself, "surely, given these numbers, there are well qualified candidates who are being denied." And you would be right. This thought then drifts into another: "How do these programs determine who makes the cut? At some point, they must resort to completely arbitrary and unfair criteria for cutting down the massive applicant pool." And you would again be right. If you are white, male, Christian, or conservative, then you may also begin to worry that you will be rejected if the admissions committee caught wind of any of these facts. Further along in your research, you will find that departments like engaging in a dick measuring contest, primarily thanks to a ranking system called the Philosophical Gourmet Report, whose man behind the curtain is a certain fat-faced, politically correct little gossip-monger named Brian Leiter.
You then notice that the programs on his list are those that have funding and can guarantee something approaching decent employment upon graduation. It's a riskier bet to apply to those not on it. So you apply to a set of PhD programs, with at least half on that list, though not to as many as you did MA programs, since you now want to be picky about which professors you want to work with on your dissertation, assuming you know what you want to write it on. If you don't know what to write on, never fear, just pretend to be original and creative. Let's say you happen to hit the jackpot and are accepted to a program somewhere. For the first two or three years, you will be taking classes. Some you may find interesting, others you may not. At the end of your third year, you will take yet more comprehensive examinations. Upon completion of them, you are usually awarded a superfluous second MA degree. In the final year or two, you are researching for and writing your dissertation, which is basically a book that no one will read. All the while, you will be a teaching/research assistant or teaching your own class (or classes!) and likely still have language requirements to fulfill. Furthermore, you will be expected to have at least one article, though preferably more, submitted for publication in an academic journal somewhere that, again, no one will read. This is merely to pad your resume and make you look good when applying for tenure track jobs.
Let's say you make it through five years of this. For the past eleven years, your undergraduate debt has been slowly but surely accumulating interest and may even have doubled. You now need a job to begin to pay it off and so start looking. You will find that the well of tenure track jobs is virtually dry and that you are competing with hundreds of other people just like you for the same tiny number of positions. Your suspicions of nepotism will also be raised when hearing of how other people landed such positions. Let's say lightning strikes twice in your life and you get a tenure track job. Now you must write yet more articles, publish a book, preferably more, and deal with the colossal bureaucracy of the modern university that will attempt to defund your department at every available opportunity, all while teaching upwards of hundreds of brainless vegetables the basics of philosophy. And voila, becoming a "professional philosopher" has been achieved.
My advice (as someone in an MA program in a related field in the humanities who has applied to PhD programs but is seriously thinking about dropping out of academia completely, even if he is accepted somewhere): you don't need a degree to be a philosopher. Find something tolerable to pay the bills, if possible, and pursue philosophy on your own time.
Relevant (and funny and true, although I do think Marxists have, in part, contributed to ruining higher ed):
Here's what I think I do know, though:
1) Philosophy will not give you spiritual awakening or relief, or solve your problems. Philosophy is not that good, or interesting. If you are hoping to become enlightened, what you are hoping for will not happen. You are not even guaranteed, from studying philosophy, to gain any insight into anything, worldly or otherwise.
2) Philosophy will not open any financial avenues if you don't plan on going to law or med school.
3) Philosophy will not give you pride.
----
The bottom line is, philosophy does not have anything substantial to offer, intellectually or in terms of coping with the world. It would be a bad idea to give up a life you enjoy for it.
Man, these poor philosophy majors would never survive in a math department, let's be real...first-order logic is not going to kill you.
Speak for yourself. My math education was objectively terrible and symbolic logic is pointless for doing 99% of philosophy.
And I'm not currently in or going into AP, so it's irrelevant to me now.
From Student to Scholar
Getting What You Came For
I didn't apply for philosophy, mind. I was looking at the purportedly "better" field of scientific academia. It is better, but only in comparison.
Might give you some grist to chew on at least while you make up your mind.
Amen.
Jeez, what a dick. But clearly it simply reflects your own cultural upbringing. You do as was done to you. And so repeateth the cycle of dickery.
So I get it. I just don't buy it. Good parenting would be something else beyond your dire alternatives.
Yeah, it all in your head.
Question isn't, after all, a mentally deficient ward of the state. He wants to earn a PhD in philosophy. If anybody should be able to handle eminently sensible, even hard-headed and cold-hearted advice, it's a prospective philosopher.
Is Thorongil being a dick for outlining the unpleasant realities of pursuing a PhD? What he had to say is also eminently sensible. The glory days of academic employment in the liberal arts are now the stuff of vintage memory, a time back in the Mid-Century Modern era when one could get funding for advanced degrees and go on to get decent jobs teaching the burgeoning classes of baby boomers in a booming economy.
You've got the wrong idea here Mister.
I helped pay the mortgage when I still had my money for college, payed for a new car for my mother (nothing fancy, but a good car nonetheless), bought some appliances, helped with some state programs offering discounts and help with weatherization, etc.
We both live hand to mouth; but, to save you my sob story, I have a very happy life despite the rather spartan conditions. You telling me that my life is pathetic is pathetic. You've done your worst, and despite having a hard day at work, which is rewarding despite you telling me otherwise (oh the hypocrisy!).
Well, if you haven't said that then that is/was the nail that changed my mind. I find my apathy and "lack of motivation" a more healthy a realistic outlook that the 'arbeit macht frei' one professed here and whereabouts.
Heh, emptyheady, what a nick...
I'd rather try and think for myself, through this rather messy dialectical method despite exposing myself so blandly.
I think I catch the drift of your reply, but just to confirm, what have you changed your mind about?
I find self-esteem as a concept projected from society onto the individual. And I don't need to go into detail about my thoughts about what 'society' thinks is best, least we mention that society doesn't exist! Only families do, and self-serving pricks!
Good on you for all that. The thing is, living hand to mouth does not seem to be your goal. It's a strategy to maintain the life you have, like and enjoy. And there is nothing wrong with that, in the short run. In the longer run, though, maintaining a simple life takes more and more input. Costs rise, needs become greater, small emergencies require ready cash or things get worse quickly, and so on.
What Hanover (and I) are telling you is to undertake more effort. More effort, more income will be needed in the future to maintain the freedom to live the way you want to.
My thoughts? Well, education is becoming a luxury in the US. If I really wanted it, I'd move to Europe where I have citizenship and study at some 'Free college of Germany' or whereabouts. But, that boat has sailed and I don't feel like swimming after it.
I'll cross that bridge when the time comes.
You are on that bridge right now.
All this is to say you may tell me the best way to parent when you have some inkling what it entails. Before that, it's just silly speculation.
Then, I'll move to some flatter land where there ain't no bridges to cross.
Oh gawd, Kansas. Oklahoma. Western Nebraska. North Dakota. The American Outback.
Only to get swept away in a tornado.
Maybe Arizona, who knows.
Arizona isn't flat. Nice place, but lots of bridges there.
Hmm, maybe Mars is where it's all at...
It's not flat (Olympus Mons is 29.9 km high) and bus service to get there is really poor.
I read "self-esteem" to be less about image and more about personal confidence and motivation here, a sort of doing, living or habit.
It's seems more like knowing what you want and acting towards it with dedication, as opposed to an expectation someone else puts on you. Though, that's perhaps hard to see when surrounded by frothing accusations about the need to become independent.
Bingo.
Where it all is, dammit....
Yeah, but who's the one telling you you need all this confidence and motivation? The police officer in your head? And for the matter, what the hell is all this obsession with self-esteem/confidence?? Are people like inherently born with inferiority complexes?
The world is everything that is the case.
Andddd, I'll end that there.
Just because "the world" - or the place you happen to live - might be a hard place, doesn't mean you just ought to go along with its ways.
So yes of course. Your cultural environment might greatly narrow your personal choices. So you ought to bring up your kids to be practical - equipped for the way the world is. But also to be self-actualising - as the higher ambition - you don't want to just present them with the one rigid definition of success (which boils down to be like Daddy ... or at least don't repeat the way he let down his daddy.)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Does he really want to? Is he really capable? I'm not seeing clear evidence of that. Which is why - putting myself in the position of a parent - I wouldn't start labelling him simplistically as a lazy, mummy's-boy, quitter who ought to be ashamed of himself.
Only a dick does that.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If he attacked anything, it was a questionable culture. Hanover attacked the person. A slight difference don't you think?
So it is quite useful to know in advance that something might not be as fun as its sounds. Hanover instead was simply projecting his own tired stereotypes on a person he has never met.
Quoting Question
and we only have what he offered about himself to go on.
Needless to say I have kids. They are pretty much all growed up. And you will know that the first lesson of having children is to be able to respect their differences without pampering to them.
It is thus quite a creative process. If you actually understand that yet would address someone you don't know in such Trumpish fashion, then that is a definition of dickishness I say.
I'm biased against narrow notions of success that are inculcated into us and unconsciously adopted. So I say you should continue doing what you're doing for the time being. Nothing at all wrong with living with your mom and working at a job you enjoy. Now if you were married and/or had children to provide for then it would be a much different story. But I'm assuming you're young and have a certain amount of freedom that I find enviable.
You don't seem like the type of person whose ambition is driven by material considerations. That's great IMO. Why not pursue independent scholarship outside of the confines of academia? @Thorongiland @The Great Whateveroffered some great information on the practical aspect of grad school. If you don't choose that path for one reason or another (good reasons given for not going that route here) that doesn't mean you can't continue to pursue your interest in philosophy on your own.
Scale back your desires, realize that your time is the most important thing you have, and think these things through for a few more years. Maybe you'll develop a more secure sense of your abilities and move forward towards a legitimate career, or what's respected as such these days. And if not, hey, that's fine too. When you get into your thirties then maybe it'll be time to lock down a decent paying job if you have any aspirations of finding a 'partner' and possibly beginning a family.
There are risks in laying out one's situation and then asking people what they think about it. I wouldn't call Hanover's comments an unprovoked attack. Question is asking about a 10+ year project (PhD in anything) which might, quite possibly, not pay off well. Hanover cut to the quick. "How do you think you are going to get on in life?"
I know from my own personal experience (I started college once upon a time, long ago) that the ideas we have in our heads about the future can be terribly naive and mistaken. Later on, when I was counseling college students (this back in the 1970s) many of them had no idea of what it would take to achieve what they, or their parents, thought they wanted.
The children of the privileged upper classes (say, the top 20%) generally get fairly good direction about how to succeed in life. Their parents succeeded handsomely, they have ways and means and they make sure their children benefit from their own advantages.
80% of the people don't have these advantages, and don't have the necessary specialized knowledge to tip off their children about how to get ahead and succeed (something that most parents desire for their children).
Hanover was offering his insight. Nothing more. Not a dick.
I don't think there is any problem living with your mother, but it may be for you in the long run and I believe that every person should attempt to be on their own to really get a grasp of what it is that they want in life and for themselves unless you, by some miracle, meet an amazing woman who will help you reach that goal. Why people believe it is wrong to live with their mothers is often because it confirms a lack of independence; genuine and successful relationships between people are best when two people have attained that individuality and direction in life and merely share it with one another and the risk is that you will continue this dependence when forming relationships with other women; that is, you may find yourself comfortable, yes, but unsuccessful and ultimately unhappy.
When one depends on the other, well, the dynamics becomes difficult and in the long-term you will look back having repeatedly done the same thing in different ways because you fear taking risks and challenging yourself to avoid losing comfort. Life is not about getting through it. It is about living it.
Don't listen to Andrew K and don't listen to Hanover. Listen to yourself.
I am aware of that and I am confident that the OP will pursue a life of philosophy whether academically or independently, but what I got from his post was a lack of confidence in himself. Once he breaks that barrier and challenges himself by being courageous enough to take risks, his greater ambitions will come to fruition. The first risk is living on his own for a while.
Quoting Agustino
This is the most horrifying thing I have read in a very long time. Quite literally. Though I understand your point [if it is attempting to speak of transcendence], the way that you have explained it in light of referencing Osho is just all wrong. You become that very 'worm' that Kierkegaard despises, as do I.
“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”
The purpose in life is that YOU MAKE your purpose in life and yes, one will need to let go of the 'worldly' aspect with this attempt, that is, trying to build an artificial life with false ambitions, but that all boils down to finding your independence and being able to ascertain what it is you genuinely what and are as an individual. It is only possible when you reach autonomy, embrace your free-will. Then, the eternal beauty of our capacity to live, the opportunities becoming so profound, so exciting that real passion starts to form, only then will you understand life. To lock yourself in a cage because you are terrified to fly - though you have wings - and pretend to yourself that is somehow wisdom by adopting New Age gobbledegook, well, that only confirms that you have chosen a purposeless life. What does that say to your state of mind and being?
I would venture to say no-one. In this sense, it's one's own act, the habits one is compelled to do, where one drifts with their free time. Am I motivated and habitual in my painting? Or is it something I never quite get around to because I'm too busy rehashing Spinoza with John every second day?
It's not a police officer (though others might use a concept of "self-esteem" in that way, in an attempt to get you to behave in a way they prefer). If one is fighting with themsleves in this context, I would say self-esteem is absent. In the sense I'm taking about, it's about what you do every day.
Many people are distracted or imagine they are something they are not. I don't really think it a question of an inferiority complex in most cases, just they have interests which lie elsewhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with this per se, but if one is going to master a particular skill or hold a specific position, the dedication of self is important. I won't be a great painter if I just deadicate myself to posting on The Philosophy Forum.
Knowing and doing what you want sort of changes the game. With this sort of "self-esteem," the procrastination of "should I get around to it" or "maybe l'll get this done tomorrow" is tossed away.
Listen to the sirens signaling the passing of your life, Question! Shine on you crazy diamond :-O
https://youtu.be/n9huSs0g67c
Also... You have to be a certain age to remember why they smelled their papers.
On the matter at hand, I agree with @The Great Whatever: Don't go into philosophy if you expect it to solve any major life problems for you. And I would think, judging by my limited knowledge of your personality, you wouldn't be self-motivated enough to do what it takes to make it in academia anyway (I know I'm not). If you want to build up your confidence, I'd suggest you try teaching English as a foreign language or something along those lines. Travel. See a bit of the world. At least put yourself outside your comfort zone at some point, or life will inevitably do it for you and probably in a much more unpleasant way than if you had planned it.
Yes, but in order to be more than that worm, you have to accept the possibility of being that worm. Only when fear of being that worm has been overcome - only then are you free to be anything more than that worm. Until that has been overcome - you'll always be that worm. I despise worms too :) but worms aren't created by actions and outward circumstances. Worms are created by inner disposition.
As for Osho - I don't agree with Osho but the cure, in order to ultimately reach equilibrium, needs to be greater than the disease.
Quoting TimeLine
Renouncing is not equivalent to giving up on who one is - I never renounce who I am, I renounce outward expectations of anything. I don't renounce my values. I don't change my values depending on the circumstances in order to have anything. I don't renounce my ambition - I renounce the fulfilment of my ambition - there is a very large difference there.
Quoting TimeLine
This has nothing with any outward expression of anything. I could be selling groceries for the rest of my life, or working in a nursery, or living with my mother, or anything else that you'd consider cutting your wings off. It's not outward circumstances and actions that make life profound, passionate, and intense - it's the fire inside your heart. You may outwardly be nobody - indeed you may be a caged bird - your life may be completely boring and uninteresting - and yet inward you could be richer than Bill Gates. It's your inward life - not your outer life, that is under the question. That's what brings intensity to all the moments, regardless of how they outwardly appear.
Quoting TimeLine
Outward things don't say anything about my state of mind and being, except superficially.
Witty, all worked up and frustrated from the constant blue balls of intellectual discourse (he was gay for philosophy, you see), after failing to find some suitable fascists to obliterate, got a job as a porter.
Not only did he like to tell students that they ought to go out and find real jobs, he apparently asked Russell if his dissertation was good, or if he should go become a porter.
And I'd expect you'd even admit to the real benefit of getting out of the rut of dependency and directionlessness when you secured a challenging job.
I don't know what Question should do though, I think that he's going to do what he wants unless forced to do otherwise, all the while punishing himself for not wanting the things he wished he wanted. That's what I'ma do at least.
Positive liberty is a leftist joke.
Anyway, Thorongil claimed it is expensive to live in Germany, which is factually inaccurate, Germany is quite cheap. Also, "free" college does not mean an easy entry, they have got -- like many other European nations -- limited and highly regulated enrolment. Also, the German work-ethic is tough and disciplined.
But to keep this thread constructive, the purpose of a college degree is to get a job, keep that in mind, before enrolling. Take the opportunity cost of college into account as well, it is a-four-year loss of income and experience.
There are some really attractive vacancies regarding IT or programming that you could enrol without prior experience or qualifications, working on ERP software etcetera. You often get a free half-year course, paid by the corporate, and then a contract to get employed. The earnings are not bad as well -- well above the minimum wage -- you should consider it. It is in high demand, the job prospects are looking good and stable in the future.
I myself may consider to move to the USA in the future -- I have never been there.
edit: or just listen to Bittercrank, Hanover or Murray.
Then your mother should be ashamed of herself.
I endorse this advice fully. All my experience is congruent with this. (Y)
It's just a little weird to read that while glancing at your avatar.
Independence is something idolized here or at least in the west, which I find hilarious. I don't care for it.
Let me illiterature, hehe;
I am happy with my life with mom, we've been through hell and back.
I love my mom.
I love my mom and helping her more than prizing the realization of my dreams.
Me asking about living with my mom was not intended to be understood as something that bothers me; but, rather a question that originated from the demands of society, which I gladly have, will, and continue to shirk away from.
I like my job. (Anyone notice yet the "me myself and I" mindset that I am disregarding?)
I've been to college for a degree in behavioral economics, I know what its like and don't consider what other people here think is "rational" to do as something that they themselves really understand.
It isn't for me, despite appearing brilliant to every professor I have met.
I find the process of [s]learning[/s] understanding! as a continual and gradual experience, which this forum provides quite nicely, than one that is amassed and condensed into a spam package to be then regurgitate back.
I have ways to make money; but actually don't care for money apart from the strict necessities in life (I'm a needs, not wants guy).
Actually, if one really wants to make money, one should NOT go into college and then get a degree in anything apart from the medical field or engineering; but, to do that you have to have quite a lot of passion and stamina. I can put forth 1/10'th the effort in selling novel chemicals or products with low capital costs in China with high markups, and low expenses in the US online (not drugs, although that's where the idea originated from), all while making enough money in 1 month as some posters here make in 1 year. Put that away in an index fund, do it for 5 years (usually the amount of time before the FDA comes in and saying something (bla bla bla) and live quite comfortably. Why am I not doing that already and wasting your time here? Well, if it isn't clear I don't care for money, haha.
Lastly, I have a very small ego (unlike, others who felt the need to make this thread about themselves, lol). I don't idolize it. I don't serve to it. I don't cater to it. I don't care about it. It's probably some issue, which is bothering me less and less as I progress through the years. I'm not a very sociable guy as you might guess, due to finding other ego's quite burdensome.
I am an ethical person, and my only desire is to help my mom pay off her bills and mortgage. Despite me not being a self serving prick and at it feeling all great and accomplished, I am happy with my life and only asked for some advice regarding furthering my studies in philosophy and being recognized socially in that through a public institution. Seeing as the process is more trouble than good, I have resigned from it and in that have answered my own question through the kindness of other posters sharing their wisdom. So, yeah, minds can be changed, even on internet forums!
Good day to you all.
If you're in Atlanta, stop on by.
Oh yeah, and guess what, Hanover means by "paternalism" and "fatherhood" promiscuity and the like. He certainly didn't tell Question to go and get married. He told him to move out. To do what? Presumably to fuck around, as he vigorously recommends, publicly and without shame whenever he gets the chance, is that right? :-} That's what makes one a "real man" according to this :-x .
I moved out early, but there's nothing "great" in that. The only reason why I moved out was simply because circumstances demanded that I do so. There's literarily nothing great or admirable in moving out from your mother's flat... It's simply absurd for fuck's sake >:O Quite the contrary, someone may choose to stay with their mother to help her as she's getting older, and even bring their own wife, and future children and raise them there, in an extended family.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah very succesful, I have no doubt, with a father like you, I can only imagine >:O >:O
Quoting Hanover
Give me a break... just give me a break. Nobody beats their own wings. To beat their own wings would mean they aren't already chained by society. The fact that they have a job and pay their bills in NO SENSE means that they are independent. No, they are slaves, the worst part is that they probably aren't even aware of it. Having a job is the farthest thing from freedom, whether you're working as the CEO of Microsoft, or as your local grocery boy.
Quoting Hanover
I realised that Hanover simply has no shame - this guy is unbelievable.......
Damn, that's really nice of you. Look how nice that Hanover is...
My Dad stays with me (not the other way around), and most recently my fourteen year old sister now. She arrived like December, I think, maybe November, so unfortunately not a fantastic time to show up, but I'll make up for the shitty winter in the summer.
I don't want them to go, or I'd be all alone!
Immigration process would be tough for me...
http://online.seterra.com/en
Hah hah! I forgot to laugh. Securing a challenging job - let me tell you, even if someone made me CEO of Microsoft tomorrow I'd refuse.
Unbelievable that there's actually people who have a brain and actually believe there's something admirable about securing a challenging job......... :-d
Okay, sounds awesome. Since I'm a holistic roofer, I'm going to also need to visit a few tropical places in order to spiritually estimate the earth's chakra flow. You'll have to cover it, but just like all of my work, it comes with a guarantee until the first rain.
So ironic. The process is tough if you follow it, but really easy if you don't care.
Let's not forget that there are self made people with self made jobs that only they could do. If only Trump had it his way, then and only then would America would have been Great Again.
*cringes uncontrollably*
Yeah, I actually admire those. But the point is there's nothing great about simply having a job. It's about your creativity, learning skills that are valuable to others, developing your character. That's what matters. If someone develops their creativity and knowledge, learns valuable skills, and develops their character I don't care at all if they have a job or not.
Okay, but I also get to rummage through your garbage and keep whatever I like.
Really? What's with the aura around these charlatans? What's so great about Microsoft or Apple? As if the CEO of GE or Lockheed Martin or 3M came up with all their own patents?
It's actually quite dehumanizing to say that certain individuals were only capable of coming up with these great companies. My conservative friend talks about 'degrees' of humans in pseudo-Nazi fashion who accomplish these great feats.
No I haven't said I admire the CEOs at all. I said I admire
Quoting Question
People who make their own jobs - who contribute with their own value. This may very well not be the CEO (in fact it probably isn't - CEOs are typically dumb people) - it may be a nerd closed in his office who never goes out of there, and who has no other task except to come up with creative ideas in his own time. No one ever disturbs him or knows about him.
Entrepreneurs are more likely to be such people than CEOs for that matter, even though frequently entrepreneurs will also be CEOs - like Elon Musk. But simply being CEO isn't difficult at all. It's just a political thing really. Someone who is a slave for long enough will get it. There's nothing valuable in that.
Yeah, you need to stop doing that. Ranking people based on your table of who is smart or not. It distorts your view of reality.
I haven't said I rank individuals I meet on that table by virtue of them holding a certain position. I merely stated that most CEOs aren't terribly smart at all.
What makes you say they aren't smart? I mean technically, the most psychopathic CEO is usually the most efficient one, does that make him the smartest?
Managing people in a company that already works, and has a built hirearchy and a lot of resources isn't difficult at all. Even a monkey could do it. It's building that company in the first place that is actually the hard thing. CEOs typically are people who manage bureaucracies - who have been good and obedient slaves for a long time, and who are placed there precisely because they're not dangerous - they're too dumb to be dangerous. And the structure of the company governs itself - the CEO doesn't actually make it work at all. The person who founded and started the company - or the persons - they made it work, theirs is the merit, not the CEO's.
Those weren't poor people by necessity, or ability, but were surely a horde of noble freegans, fighting the good fight against all of those isms you mentioned earlier.
That's not exactly true. CEOs typically are politically manipulative - but they're only capable within an already existent structure. They're not capable of creating something themselves.
The smartest is the one who creates something and makes it work.
You know... actually, I have some idea of how starting a company works. It takes talent in recognizing efficient means to achieve a goal, the power of persuasion, and a whole lot of lawyers to protect, promote, and fend of competition. You also need to steal a lot of ideas from competition without them noticing.
Is that really something that we should be idolizing?
True
Quoting Question
True
Quoting Question
Yeah, where do you get the money for those? It gets easy once you can get those. The hard part is getting to that point. Making that money starting from zero isn't easy at all. It takes real ingenuity.
Quoting Question
No, not necessarily.
Actually, it takes a lot of talking to investors. And let's not kid ourselves, no one person can come up with all the nuances and details of a product on their own. Most, if not all ideas were borrowed from somewhere else (education, human capital, patents, other people more capable?)... Oh, and subsidies definitely help.
Okay, first let's make some distinctions. Yes theoretically the administrator/CEO of the company is the one bearing all the accountability (unless of course there is evidence to the contrary). Practically, the CEO has a multitude of ways to pass on responsibilities to others. People are judged based on the paperwork. If the paperwork says something, then that's how it happened. CEOs are adept at mastering paperwork.
So tell me Wosret, what happens if an order is given orally, but there is no written record of it or even worse?
Quoting Question
Not everyone does it by acquiring capital from an investor. There are many boot-strapped companies. Even when capital is acquired from investors, your company must already be earning quite a decent amount of money (generally) before you get someone to invest. If you're at that point, you're already successful due to your own effort, even before the investor got in - the investor merely speeds up your success.
What could be worse? Theoretically murderers are supposed to go to jail, but they're clever pyschos, so they intricately plan in advance, and what if they killed them orally, and there is no body left... or even worse than that somehow!
I don't know much about business, CEOs and stuff, but I did think that they make the most, not because they're supposed to do the most, or even most important work or anything, but because they're supposed to take responsibility for their company to the rest of the world, and thus take on the most personal risk.
Probably doesn't work out that way in practice, few things do, but the principle seems reasonable to me.
Could the paperwork saying something different instead of being non-existent be worse?
Quoting Wosret
Yes the principle is indeed reasonable, but as reasonable as most other principles are (actually the owners make the most, since theoretically they are risking their capital), there are ways around it.
Or take another scenario. You're the Prime Minister, and as part of your role you can name the head of the secret service in your country. The following events happen:
1. You ask the current head whether person X has done something wrong and whether the service has any information on it. He says no.
2. In two months time, you discover that the head of the secret service hasn't followed some protocol, and you dismiss him, and name someone else who has been recommended to you.
3. You ask the new head whether person X has done something wrong and whether he should be further investigated. He disagrees.
4. In four months time, you find that there has been a suspect call between the head of the secret service and an old business friend of his. You dismiss him
5. You appoint a new head, and ask him whether person X has done something wrong and whether this needs to be investigated. He tells you that it is being investigated, and he will prepare the files to send to Court.
Have you as Prime Minister given any orders apart from dismissing folks for not being orthodox enough in their obedience to the law?
Glad that we agree with me.
lol on what do you mean?
I only read the first sentence, the rest seemed superfluous.
>:O it was!
BTW, Kubrick actually made someone type all 300 + pages.
That's similar to the path that I chose, except that my job isn't as rewarding or ideal, although it does pay [i]slightly[/I] more than the minimum wage. (And I don't live with my mother). So I would choose the above option. I am content to have philosophy as a hobby, and I don't want to do all the time consuming hard work required to get the relevent qualifications.
I'd advise you to disregard the judgmentalism and looking-down-upon-ness as expressed in the replies of TimeLine and Hanover.
I disagree with regards to TimeLine. TimeLine may disagree with Question's choices, but it's clearly with the goal of helping him - TL at least has good intentions in this matter.
The same however cannot be said about that prick Hanover ... Who does this merely to narcissistically inflate his own ego, with total disregard for the feelings and desires of other human beings - hence why he calls Question "pathetic". I wouldn't be surprised if Hanover's "successful" children are actually not quite succesful, and Hanover doesn't have such a good relationship with them at all, hence why he takes it out on Question, seeing his own children in him. But that would be speculation and going too far. Anyway, his sort of vindictive and superior-level judgementalism is something that greatly angers me when I see it in people in general.
>:O But rehashing Spinoza with John may be a way to actually increase your productivity and creativity in painting :P
In fairness to those who some think gave you "hard advice" or were judgmental, you might have been more forthcoming in your initial request for feedback. In light of this information, I would have taken a much different tack. Like already having a degree...
Quoting Question
...sheds much light on where you are coming from.
Maybe you have disclosed much about yourself in bits and pieces here and there, but I haven't been tracking your posts that closely. (Sorry, I'm too self-centered and egotistical, I guess.)
As for the importance of the ego, it is a watershed issue. Some people think a strong ego important (which is not being a narcissistic, egotistical asshole) and some people discount the ego (which is not the same as making of oneself an unworthy worm). Low self-esteem (your term) does point toward wishing one had a stronger ego--or something to that effect. It's perfectly acceptable to be humble and think well of yourself (to have self-esteem). Self-esteem isn't the same as pride, either, which cometh before a fall.
Now as for becoming a proper philosopher... Getting a PhD in philosophy will help you become a notable philosopher as much as getting a PhD in English Literature will help you become another Shakespeare. It won't. It can't. It never has. It never will.
By this time you either have the makings of being a significant philosopher or you don't -- the same way that I am either a potential notable author, or I am not. (Note: I am not.) That's just the way the cookie crumbled. In the mean time, you seem to be living your philosophy. Good for you. Good luck. Good afternoon.
Well, he didn't say he had a degree. He said he had been to college for a degree. Going and getting are two different things, but I leave the clarification to him.
What are you smoking, bro. It can cost around a 1000 Euros or more to live there per month.
What is this an interrogation? Yes, I have been to college; but dropped out if you must know. I think I've stated that before in my post history, but, don't expect that to contribute to anything to this discussion here. If going to college is such a big issue, then I'll do what's most efficient and go back to complete my degree in behavioral economics. In fact, me dropping out (which was technically a medical leave), is for the best because I was really not putting any effort into my studies despite maintaining a decent GPA (3.6). However, technically a degree even in economics is quite useless nowadays from what I have found out from a friend who graduated from UCB. He applied to some 40-60 places after graduating from such a top tier school and regrets going there due to not being able to find even an entry position.
I appreciate you acting as a father figure over the internet, you Bitter Cranck and Hanover, but I have already chosen to listen to unenlightened who has unfortunately not chimed in; but, I would already know what he would say more or less. To be honest, I would pay some of you guys for the advice and appreciate it greatly. I don't feel offended by some of the more in-your-face comments, and think the accusations thrown against Hanover are overblown. I can't stand whining, and if I came off as such, then all the better that Hanover pointed it out.
Thanks again for the advice you all. I'll go back to reading some more Wittgenstein now on my day off. Already looking for a second job.
I'm a cannibalistic troll if you must know. I only troll trolls.
Some of the comments in this discussion are repugnant. But then you don't seem to care that much about what I have to say, because I'm not one of your favourites.
Un should definitely post more. Now someone else invoke him, we need three and then by the laws of the universe (and every movie I've ever seen), he must apparate.
Quoting Wosret
That isn't a good picture of me, even though that's my good side.
Look after your children, and look after your parents. Play nice, and nothing else matters. Nobody knows what they are doing, and all advice is worthless. You're probably fucked whatever you do, and if not, it's luck not wisdom.
Hahahaha. That's pretty harsh coming from you or wait is it me that's telling myself that I'm fucked. Now you've confused me thoroughly, haha.
Well, it's kind of like saying to your friend in the same raft with a hole in it 'We're pretty fucked mate.' To which you reply, 'Yeah no shit!'
Germany ranks 32 (USA is 18th) on the cost of living index and has an average living expenses of 716 Euro's per month in Berlin -- Germany has an average income before tax of 3716 Euro's, while minimum wage gives you monthly 1473 Euro's before tax.
Leaving out government subsidies etcetera.
Germany is cheap blud. I ain't smoking nuffin'.
edit: 1000 euro's per month is still cheap.
I don't quite get what's supposed to be analogous to what - or who - in that analogy, to be honest. Or what the point of it is supposed to be. You might need to spell it out.
Is it intended to be a defence of the sort of comments made by Hanover, in that it's supposed to illustrate the merit in being brutally honest? Or was it about me? Are you saying we're fucked, just like the people in the raft? Or... what? I dunno.
I do appreciate your ownership of whatever flaws you may have, and it does not appear you're as fragile as your protective friends might've thought. My most significant point really is that you (and me and everyone) be cautious about adopting a personal philosophy that allows for idleness. In truth, such philosophies are nothing more than rationalizations for poor conduct.
I think my point is that we're both the same age, similar problems, and similar interests, with the boat analogy. The hole in the boat are our problems, not identical, but similar. I don't even know the rest. It was meant as a stream of consciousness post.
There you go again. What's wrong with idleness? Who or what get's to decide my poor conduct apart from my manager at work?
You seem to have your super-ego on the fritz here, and the constant need to justify it by criticizing others is well not really fun to listen to.
Okay. Well, that is true. But I don't agree with what some of the other people in this thread, and perhaps you yourself, have judged to be a problem.
It never ends, does it?
Apples to oranges.
Quoting Emptyheady
Sorry, maybe city dwellers are inured to such costs, but that's still a lot of money, to me at least. The point remains, though, that one would have to find work in addition to going to school to survive in Germany.
I wasn't expecting that kind of reply.
I've only become self-sufficient (or at least considerably more so) in recent years. I only moved out from my mother's house last December, and I only got back into work several years ago after spending several years unemployed and on benefits. So, if Question is not self-sufficient, then I can relate to that.
I do think that I am better off than I was, in more ways than one... but what's better for me isn't necessarily what's better for others, and I don't think that it's right to judge Question's situation based on these preconceived notions you seem to have about the proper relationship between parent and child. I think that your view is more based on convention, whereas I tend to think more outside of the box. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with a child living with their parent for any length of time whatsoever, so long as it's a mutual arrangement. As for finicial support, that's a little more complicated, but I have a feeling that the way I see it would allow for a little more generosity.
Likewise with career choice. I see no problem with Question's minimum wage job if it's his ideal job, and if he finds it highly rewarding. [I]Good for him[/I].
Of course, I am judgemental, too, from time-to-time - as we all are. Perhaps I am judgemental more so than others, or more than I realise or care to admit. But it isn't really a good thing.
At least in the US, and I think in England (probably some other places in Europe too) the rate at which children either remain residents in their parents homes, or leave for a time and then return, has risen substantially over the last 30 years. This isn't a problem of too much parent-child attachment, it's an economic problem (mostly the children's).
College results in debt. A failure to get hired in a job (appropriate or not) results in inability to repay debt, more debt is added, and before long the unlaunched young adult is heading home. Once home, the pressure seems to be off and the search for work might become less urgent, because in many cases the parents are carrying the child. And the fact is, jobs for certain kinds of workers are scarce.
This isn't Question's situation (apparently) but it seems to be the situation that Hanover and I were strongly reacting to. College graduates are not always realistic about the benefits of education, and of course, colleges do not always act in good faith with prospective students. Were they operating in good faith, they would discourage a good many students from attending, because a good share of the students will not benefit occupationally.
I am glad I went to college; it started me on a life-long course of learning. I am also glad I was tracked into business classes in high school. Being able to type, and being more or less willing to work as a secretary or clerk kept food on the table more often than my English Lit major did. I am very grateful I never had to go back home to live with my parents. That would have been close to the ultimate humiliation.
Tell me, where did this source of neuroticism, which I might very well be displaying, originate from? [A]ndrewk provided a partial answer; but, I am interested in your input on the matter. Surely, this goes back all the way to the Bible. But, what about the parable of the prodigal son?
Geez, Sapientia, what on earth possessed you to compare me to a man whose sole ambition in life is to get stretch marks on his ankles? :(
Well, here I must ask for your apology as I certainly either lacked cultural relativism or at the very least was haughty enough to assume that you were from a western culture, perhaps the latter a good thing in that you are able to articulate yourself rather well enough for the above-mentioned to escape my original assessment. However, and to reiterate, I never said that there was something wrong with living with your mother and certainly looking after your mother is strongly reinforced in places like China. I also said that your position could even be enviable - I love to garden and have many various roses and flowers that I cultivate as well as fruits and herbs - but it does not change the fact that Candide had to go through a substantial amount of absurdity to realise the point of having a garden.
Why, exactly, can you not take care of your mother and live on your own? If you had ambition, if you wanted to make something of yourself, why can you not fulfil your dreams and help her at the same time? This sacrifice is not an actual sacrifice, you see, neither is it love or guilt. It is your dependence and ultimately that can weaken you in the long-term. Would the only way you detach from your mother be when you meet a girl and simply transfer that dependence over to her? And what if this girl was a moron? Will you continue to depend on the moron until you become one as well? The one thing that has always disturbed me is how people say things like this:
"...question that originated from the demands of society, which I gladly have, will, and continue to shirk away from."
There is no justification for shirking away from the world and to say you will happily do so is no different to someone who witnessed a crime and instead pretended that they never saw anything. You are afraid to live and that means you do not love life. If you did, if you really understand how magnificent it actually is, you would fight against injustice, you would be passionate, you will take risks because you will not shrivel at the face of the ignorant but come face to face with it until they shrivel.
I am all for people sharing their personal stories and please do not assume I am attacking you. If you see what I say, if you don't, there is not much I can do. But I believe you are highly intelligent and the world - the world you understand to be wrong - needs people like you to take responsibility so that if you are as you say here:
"I am an ethical person..."
Than you would help more than just your mother. You would help yourself and not sacrifice yourself to pay the bills. But, in the end, your life and your choice.
Your first reply, which was the very first reply to the opening post, and the first reply that I read. It wasn't as harsh or strongly worded as Hanover's, and you clearly had good intent, but I still found it objectionable for similar reasons to Question.
Looking down on people who spend time with their mother and eat KFC. What's wrong with that? And if his now ex-wife left him for those sorts of reasons, or because he didn't succumb to the social pressure of other people trying to push him up the 'career ladder', and instead chose a career that he thinks is right for him, then frankly she sounds like a shallow bitch who he'd be better off without.
Although, I've not read most of the discussion, and I've just seen this:
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, if we are talking about 1k expense as a student, then we agree.
I did work in addition to school, but not a lot -- it was still tough.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, one of the reasons I left Buddhism as a serious philosophical conduct. I am fully aware that that is not the intention of Buddhism, nor the school of thought -- before I get accused of straw man -- but it is the unintentional consequence of it, the great apathetic state of indifference. Suffering is often a good stimulation to drive oneself to a better state of life. If you suffer, there is probably something wrong with the condition of your life, you should change something and medication is probably not the panacea -- nor philosophy for that matter.
There are medical exceptions, but I have a hard time believing that everybody has a medical ailment. (3...2...1... Wosret replying.....)
edit: there are only two dispositions you need to focus on in life, ambition and discipline. The rest will naturally follow.
Quoting Question
Ultimately? I don't know--for your case or mine. We become 'neurotic' when our deep aspirations are thwarted, whatever those aspirations might be, and the experience of being thwarted is not resolved. So, the kid who expected to be the 'golden boy' who wasn't and never figured out what to make of this Big Disappointment, might react neurotically--just one example. People have all sorts of aspirations that get thwarted, and become a bit neurotic in lots of ways.
Me? I confess to having had conflicting aspirations that were and were not thwarted, were and were not resolved, and resulted in some definite neuroses that were/are problematic for me.
Where do our overly ambitious aspirations come from? Just my opinion, but I think the mainspring of our aspirations was in place before we left the trees. Our primate cousins (and we) are pretty status conscious. We, at least, have to go out of our way to avoid status competition. Those of our tribe who are "other directed" probably will pursue whatever social status games are available. Those who are strongly, and securely, "inner directed" can afford--indeed must--march to different drummers.
I don't know how or why people are inner or other directed, or in what combination of the two.
I like to keep people guessing.Quoting Sapientia
I understand we're faced with limited information and our opinions are no better than the information upon which they are based, and for that reason we often modify our opinions here when we learn additional information, but I think if we exercise such great caution before speaking, we'll never meaningfully engage. What you've said here is that you largely agree with the notion, at least based upon your limited experience, that there is true benefit from independence. I'd suspect that benefit is far reaching, affecting areas of self-esteem, outlook on life, social interaction, and emotional well being among many other things. I also understand you feel some kinship to Question, having been in a situation not dissimilar to his. Although, as I said, I do think the critical distinction between the two of you is his desire to remain where he is. In fact, he finds dependence no more or less a virtue than self-sufficiency.
I get that you might not be so bold as to call his position pathetic, but there's probably a middle road between that and silent respect for a position that you disagree with. For example, offering understanding, qualifying that what is good for you might not be so for him, etc, and then tactfully offering your two cents. Yeah, that's another way, but it hardly has the Hanoverian effect.
I'm just responding to your statement that judging is a bad thing. It's really not.
It's a bad thing if you have bad judgement; that's my judgement anyway.
Well, to summarize here, I've taken a very strong stance against your stance that whether one is idle or one is constructive is irrelevant. My position is that it does matter, and it is in fact pathetic that you find no more or less pride in spending your days twiddling your thumbs than in actually accomplishing something. I get that you don't actually twiddle your thumbs, but consistent with what you said, you would find the 25 year old thumb twiddler who is cared for by mommy no better or worse than an actual productive member of society.
I could offer the platitude "to each his own," but I don't think that. In fact, the only reason society continues to function is because there are few enough of you and the system is large enough to absorb you. And this is not a conservative rant. I don't care if your incentive is a bigger house or because you feel yourself an integral part of the commune. No society, East to West, welcomes the loafer.
To the extent you're in a transitional state, getting yourself on your feet and relying upon your mother, I see nothing wrong with that. I also really see nothing wrong with living with your mother as long as you continue to advance in your own life and not just fall into a state of easy dependency.
The definition of loafer (and pay close attention to the synonyms and the sample sentence):
"1. a person who idles time away.
synonyms: idler, layabout, good-for-nothing, lounger, shirker, sluggard, laggard, slugabed; informalslacker, slob, lazybones, bum
"to his parents' chagrin, he was a complete loafer" "
"The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I guess, but I don't know any culture that has no work ethic, if for no reason than food doesn't just fall from the sky.
Just the fact that they weren't working hard drove the British bananas.
That was always ever the context in which I made my original point....
That's quite an argument to make that one must be from another culture to see things differently. I have lived in Europe for about 8 years and grant that experience as some sort of foundation where this thread is build on. But, if you want to really catch my drift, I have found that people who stay together are actually happier together contrary to the beliefs implicitly presented here.
Quoting TimeLine
Yea, that's the opportunity cost you forgo when living alone as opposed to with someone, who can help share the expenses.
Quoting TimeLine
That was my original attempt with trying to integrate into society (through joining the military). In that process, which might seem [s]strange[/s] harsh but one that I would desire for any of my offspring I found where I stand relative to most of my peers in society. I'm not a guy that likes being controlled or put into controlled settings, that stuff sets me off.
Quoting TimeLine
I would actually argue otherwise that my mother is dependent more on me emotionally; but, I don't want to overpsychologize the matter.
Quoting TimeLine
I appreciate your compassion on the matter and as a Stoic (moreso than a Buddhist as being a Buddhist in the West is very hard to adjust to) I am trying to always be more compassionate. That's not an easy task and I envy those who can be compassionate just for the virtue of being compassionate.
Quoting TimeLine
Not at all, the worst judgement has already been passed, which was inevitable by a certain member and I know that in some minds I might appear as pathetic or a loser; but, that has yet to bother me in any way.
It's a bad thing to judge, m'kay?
You got it all the wrong way. The mother now depends on the son, given her age. There are unmet expectations being babbled away here from my mouth or fingers.
Quoting Hanover
Before you go off the wall, I'm not on welfare or benefits. I make my own small contributions at my local job. I don't know what your expectations or strict rigora are for an 'ideal citizen' but it ain't happening here. Besides, there is no such thing as 'society', eh?
You can take this to the extreme although thankfully we don't get those nut jobs around here, that blacks were 'inferior' to white's once upon a time due to their lifestyle and way of life. Ahough... you can see that pot being stirred today in regards to 'Muslims'.
I wouldn't say that living independent of parents and grasping challenge is a universally accepted ideal. Italian men can't do it due to housing shortage. In Korea opportunity is just too limited for everybody to rock out their potential. But it is an ideal in America. If you're in America, living contrary to that puts you in the oddball category. There are pros and cons to being an oddball.
A foolish ideal.
If that's your judgement, you have poor judgement in your own judgement.
No, not judging, being judgemental.
Bums can't lose any more than what they have lost already. They win by default.
"Protestant work ethic" is as lazy as the "derogatory black stereotype". From Luther, "all work is holy" and all work is dignified, whether it is the work of a priest or the work of the lowest class of laborer.
The Protestant work ethic is Calvinist. Lutherans just sit around drinking beer.
IMHO.
One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it.
The point of that reference - albeit rather jokingly rude, yes - was that you will end up doing the same thing over and over again that you will never really live, remaining dependent, safe, comfortable but having no real taste of freedom. Freedom is where our genuine humanity exists and we need to exercise it in order to live, using instruments both subjectively and objectively including taking risks, challenging yourself, overcoming fears to reach or transcend toward having that capacity to understand - authentically - how to be autonomous. If you meet a girl, for instance, you merely swap that dependence over to her and follow her as long as you are comfortable [the only time this is an exception is when the girl is exceptional enough to help elevate you toward this freedom... good luck finding such a woman]. For many, comfort equates to happiness; you may have it 'all' but really it is nihilistic because you hate life enough to sacrifice it for this comfort, relieving yourself with questionable excuses such as pretending to be defiant to societal pressure when - just like much of society pretending to be individuals when they blindly follow in masses - you are blindly following your fears.
Masculinity itself is a social construct and anyone who idolises muscular, male forms, concepts like a powerful career and other perceptions that somehow epitomise a 'man' is, well, a dipshit. I can only love someone for the principles that they follow because they show me who they are as a person subjectively, not their appearances, because the former is what makes a 'real man'. But someone who is dependent and cowardly enough to not follow his heart, has no passion for life that he cannot make decisions without approval or never challenges himself by taking risks is truly non-existent. He is a slave to fear and comfort eases the tension of this fear; so your shallow bitch leaving him is just another excuse you are making to justify this really terrible attitude to life.
The principles within us - principles like virtue, courage, honour - are real, they are necessary when we seek to become autonomous in character and cognition. You cannot run away from civilisation and expect that somehow that is 'ethical' and will effect change only because you don't hurt anyone. The Ring of Gyges is enough to prove that it is what goes on within a person that is relevant. A truly ethical person would be disgusted with the crimes of humanity and would want to effect change somehow, even locally in their community, and you can't effect change if you are too afraid to get off the couch and take responsibility for your own life.
It could also be that my alleged offense was being mean and Question's was simply being useless. Being mean to me is therefore considered fair comupance, whereas attacks on Question are considered piling on. It's understandable, but I agree emotionally driven.
You eat at Subway because you are know that KFC has put batter-fried rats in their buckets of chicken. Well, let's not get huffy over that! Rat protein is as good as chicken protein. What's a little rat meat for lunch? Though, I suppose a big old rat might be a bit stringy. Young rat much better.
Something to think about the next time you all head for the fast food joint of that southern reprobate, "the colonel".
Quoting Hanover
I missed these replies.
I simply didn't see your remarks against Hanover. They [I]did[/I] escape my notice. I haven't read much of this discussion and I didn't read past the first page up to the point where I jumped in. I still don't know what exactly you're referring to.
But yes, my reaction was emotionally driven. You see, unlike Question, I regularly eat batter-fried rats at KFC on my lunch break. (My workplace is very close to a KFC). In fact, there's nothing I enjoy more than sitting on my dear mother's comforting lap whilst she spoonfeeds me lukewarm chunks of batter-fried rat at my local KFC restaurant. So I took it as a personal affront.
Anyway I would appreciate if people would not go back and forth on this who did what to whom and what for. I took no offence and had foreknowledge of exposing myself to criticism. Most of it has been constructive apart from the few value judgments, which I think a a sine qua non in evaluating one's life, well at least as long as we don't fall into bigotry and racism, all is fine and well.
So, anyway, with the hope that I've put what has occupied half of this threads length, I been doing some thinking and talking about finishing the econ degree at my local private college (Cal Lutheran University). Based on a short talk with a customer at work, they have a UC cost matching program (which I find amazing given that their institute isn't subsidized by public funds) and possible financial aid and such. It would take me a relative short time to complete my BA in econ. Now, I like to think ahead a lot and have been debating with myself over going after an MBA (as they offer a nice program that shortens the length of that considerably, though I doubt the UC cost matching offer would be valid for the year I'd have to spend with them to attain the MBA) OR, go after the big cheese, a Master of Science in Quantitative Economics, which is some heavy shit. Lot's of programming knowledge and skills required, along with some solid math foundations, and really good statistical knowledge. With a degree like that, I'd be set for life, and would have some really nice job opportunities available with the FBI or DoHS, if you haven't figured it out yet, yes I am crazy....
Relevant links:
https://www.callutheran.edu/academics/majors/economics/
https://www.callutheran.edu/management/4plus1.html
https://tfetimes.com/best-financial-economics-program-rankings/
https://www.callutheran.edu/academics/graduate/ms-quantitative-economics/
Here's an example of the lack of fame or greatness thing though: I had a paper published last year sometime in the early Spring. The paper took about five to six months to research, draft, edit, get feedback, and finally send into a publisher at which point it sat in review for five more months and was finally published. Guess how many people have cited my article in the past year? Zero. And that's normal! The average paper in philosophy might get professionally cited (by someone other than yourself)1-10 times during the authors life - maybe. That supposes that it's in a reputable journal and has some relevant content to current debates in philosophy.
As for books? Forget it. The days of guys like Wittgenstein are long past. Academia doesn't work in broad strokes and your specialization at the PhD level is likely to result in books that you will use specifically for your own classes or will be read exclusively by your colleagues. It's not to say that you won't have a compelling book read by a few people outside your field, but academia has become so hyper-specialized these days that you essentially have to choose your audience. Do you write pieces accessible to the layman and that are likely to be dismissed by your peers and irrelevant for your CV or do you produce heavily technical pieces which will likely only be read by other academics and will gain absolutely no notoriety outside of the University?
Now I gotta be straight with you about the whole "validate me" comment - it pisses me off. You know how many damn undergrads email me or find little opportunities to hunt me down on campus and ask me what their chances are of going to grad school or if they should go? "Buck up" is my usual response. Because you will receive NO validation at the graduate level. None, zero, ziltch. You will receive editorial and technical support from your advisor and that's about as close as you're going to get to a pat on the back or a "good job". No one gives a shit about you and your brilliance as a grad student except your parents and your friends. You will be wrong way more then you will ever be right and your work will be torn apart more times then you can count. So if you need validation to get you in the mood for grad school (be it in philosophy or the humanities as a whole) you're done - you're the type of person that will drop out before finishing, guaranteed.
Now as to your most recent post: I don't know much about MBA programs, but be cautious with your finances. There is a tendency by many American students to assume that more or higher degrees immediately equates to financial success. Statistically speaking, the reverse if often true as people have a tendency to take on a tremendous amount of debt while pursuing those advanced degrees and end up making just enough after school to live on a shoe-string budget and pay back loans. If you can get into grad school with some type of scholarship - that'd be ideal. If you can't... eh... honestly might not be worth going unless you can find some way to cut costs or have a wealthy family.
I'm not saying you shouldn't go back and get your BA/BS but after that just do some long term financial planning. If you're game planning on completing you undergraduate degree with the intention of going on to grad school then focus up and have a stellar GPA because they makes funding decisions way easier for graduate admissions committees.
I got convinced after reading Thorongils post. You two should have a beer some time and talk over your phil careers. Meanwhile, I have to figure out if I have the talent to even be a moderately good quant. They're kinda considered mostly as geniuses and legends in the economics community.
BA in econ for now.
Quoting Thorongil
I agree with that. Even if I was guaranteed to go through all of that successfully, for me, it would simply not be worth the bother. Fuck that. Fuck even the first hurdle. I apply that across the whole of academia beyond basic education.
I'm not materialistic enough to care about putting myself through all of that to make more money, and I don't need to do whatever subject we're talking about in an academic setting or as a career. If other people want to do that, then good for them. But they should definitely think through the situation to the extent of Thorongil's post.
What you're talking about now, stuff like a Master of Science in Quantitative Economics, sounds similarly complex and requiring of a mountain of hard work. Like you yourself say, some heavy shit, and you are crazy. X-)
But if that's what you decide to do, or actually, [i]whatever[/I] you decide to do, I wish you all the best.