Choosing Not To Work

[Ugly Bastard]

I made a blog entry just now that I'd like to hear y'alls opinions on: Choosing Not To Work

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

The moment I don't have to work I will not be working.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

but thats because i'm lazy. Most likely your girlfriend is lazy too.

Lazy, lucky, cheap, society defines these terms. She is unmotivated to contribute to society. Society defines that as lazy. Society is run by consuming and producing. If she considers herself a part of society then she is lazy. If she doesn't consider herself part of society then she can consider herself not lazy. But those inside of society will always consider her lazy.

She has decided to break free from the chains of society, yay! Lucky, lazy, cheap whore.

[f3lix]

A friend of mine suggested that a "job" is doing something that provides for the betterment of the world. While I understand where he's coming from, I personally felt like I was doing something better with my life when I started going back to school to continue pursuing education. Playing poker is nice, fun, pays the bills, gives me a nice life, but in the end it is just a selfish life. It's all for me and I never did any good with those winnings (excluding buying a skee-ball machine for my parents) and because of all that, I felt more satisfied when I started helping others with their enjoyment of music.

Basically, I see where everybody is coming from and don't agree or disagree with anybody's opinions.

[BigDongedHoe]

Choosing not to work is fine and dandy if you are able to get by. For me though I want more, there is something driving me to always want more. I want a big house, nice cars, a family, etc. I don't think its a societal thing either I think there is just something in me that drives that. Not working and having almost nothing would be boring. If I had money and were able to travel, get out of the house, or do some side investments then by all means I wouldn't work.

[Ugly Bastard]

I don't see why "being selfish" is such a bad thing. I think the only reason it is a "bad thing" is because, generally speaking, when you think only of yourself, others tend to be less likely to get what they want from you. That's because, in some way, they are dependent on you. But fuck them if you don't want to supply their needs. I believe people should do exactly, only, and completely what they want.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I believe people should do exactly, only, and completely what they want.

This is fine to believe, but have you considered what our world would be like if everybody (or even 50%) of the world lived like this?

[Ugly Bastard]

ID,

I thought about it for a while. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but it seemed like you used some pretty harsh words to describe someone you've never met. Do you regard her choice not to work as something that is not to your benefit? And if so, how/why?

[Ugly Bastard]

f3lix,

Who said that they're not already?

Put another way: Life is full of choices. How many people do you know who are restricted from making choices for themselves?

[Ironic Mustache]

This is bullshit, I posted about this earlier this morning and it didn't show up.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

ID,

I thought about it for a while. You used some pretty harsh words to describe someone you've never met. Clearly you regard her choice not to work as something that is not to your benefit, and apparently, in a significant way. I'm curious how you think that is the case.

What I meant was is that if her behavior is consistent with someone who society deems is lazy then that means she is lazy. If somebody cuts off his own balls because he thinks that they lead to impure thoughts. He can think he is an "honest" man but society (and me and you) would consider him crazy. Just as someone can think they are being "discerning" but society views a specific behavior as cheap. Insight into your own behavior and motives is shitty. Most assholes don't know they are assholes. Most selfish bastards don't know they are selfish bastards. And if they do they color it in their own minds in a better way. Like a truly cheap person might believe they are discerning. Your own view of your girlfriend is colored too, because you have special, magical feelings called "love" toward her that may cloud your judgment.

I don't really think your girlfriend is a "cheap, lazy whore." Like you said I've never met her. I don't know any of her specific behaviors or habits. I was just trying to razzle your tazzle and thought you'd see that. (btw i can think of quite a few other qualities worse than being lazy or cheap)

but anyhow your girlfriend may have many wonderful hobbies that she spend her time doing and not be lazy at all. However if she leads a very sedentary lifestyle and chooses not to work for a living she is by definition lazy. The only way that you are not lazy, is to separate yourself from society. But since this is undesirable or impossible, you have accept that you are lazy and deal with people frowning on your laziness. cliche alert!: you can't have your cake and it too. if you choose not to work you may be living a freethinking lifestyle, but it is a lazy freethinking lifestyle

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

Insight into your own behavior and motives is shitty. Most assholes don't know they are assholes. Most selfish bastards don't know they are selfish bastards. And if they do they color it in their own minds in a better way. Like a truly cheap person might believe they are discerning.

Off topic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this, ID. Introspection is there for a reason...for self realization and the motivation to change, or stay, or whatever. Just because someone is an asshole doesn't mean they don't know it, that's a ridiculous notion. I'm sure lots of people are the way that they are and just don't realize it for lack of caring/thinking about it, but to say that it's impossible for ANYONE to realize how they are and make a conscious decision to continue acting that way or to change it (which is what your post implied) is just plain inaccurate.

EDIT: Also, in regard to "Insight into your own behavior and motives is shitty", I agree that to some point we tend to be subjective, as it's almost impossible not to be, but that doesn't mean that we just take that view as gospel. Intelligent people are able to recognize that their views may be subjective, and henceforth combine their personal introspection with the opinions and views of others, giving a combination of subjective and objective views, and since neither can be wholly 100% true (except in your seemingly definite attitude that society's view = absolute truth) the person makes possibly the best (and most accurate because of it's eclectic nature) judgment of their own personal behavior.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Every aspect of your post is wrong blondie. I didn't say it was impossible to realize who who you are, but most people don't. The only thing intelligence does is create more elaborate defense mechanisms. For example, questioning in a philosophical manner what is "laziness" like we are right now. introspection is shitty blonde, pantloads of scientific data backs it up.

And i didn't say society's view = absolute truth, but society certainly dictates the semantics of qualitative things such as what is bravery, lazyness, selfishness etc etc. What these things exactly mean dynamically change all the time and these ideas wouldn't even exist without the collective mind of society, so society decides what these things mean.

[Ugly Bastard]

It's not personal, but I really don't agree with a lot of what you're saying, ID. But at the same time, I feel too lazy to put my mind to attempting to explain why, so I guess I should just stfu.

[Beebs]

If you aren't making an amount of money that befits what you already have, like a lottery winner "staying at work" then you really serve no purpose at a job, you are using it as a social tool and not contributing anything that the next guy can't.

If however you are say a young CEO or some other high ranking position that requires specific skills that you can provide better than the next most qualified person, and are making enough money to justify your time working there, you are contributing.

Rich people owe society no duty at all to continue working, their money, even just sitting in investments, will accomplish much more for society than their smileing faces ever could.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

This is fine to believe, but have you considered what our world would be like if everybody (or even 50%) of the world lived like this?

An enlightend system of capitalism.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I made a blog entry just now that I'd like to hear y'alls opinions on: Choosing Not To Work

This whole thread should be entitled: "Being French"

[Ugly Bastard]

Oh good one, Chad!

[Mr. Blonde]

fc had a bad experience with the frogs in europe.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Probably the greatest living writer, Cormac McCarthy, refused to work, opting to live in poverty while he perfected his art. He somehow kept a wife during this period. They ate cheap canned food every night, and bathed in a frigid nearby lake. Now he's a legend, up to his nose in money. But he had a reason for not working. He found it a waste of time, intolerable, but more importantly, he had a better use of his time: honing his craft. I think that's the only justifiable reason not to work, if you're working towards something else on your own. Then again, if you don't want to work you don't want to work, but if that's the case then don't bitch about living in squalor. Because unless you live in a socialist country that's exactly what you'll be doing.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Probably the greatest living writer, Cormac McCarthy

Uhh... hyperbole much?

[Ironic Mustache]

If you're a writer and you spend all of your time practicing writing in order to improve your writing, so that one day you can get paid for writing, you're basically just an intern which to me is the same as work.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Uhh... hyperbole much?

First of all, my apologies for temporarily high jacking the thread - it wasn't my intention.

I hyperbole sometimes, but not in this case, no. Care to unleash some of that endless literary knowledge of yours, UB, and inform me who you think is a better living writer than McCarthy? Obviously it's subjective, but not completely. I ask that you supply ample evidence to support your claim. And in the spirit of fairness, I will do the same.

1. McCarthy has won the Pulitzer Prize (an American award regarded as the highest national honor in print journalism, literary achievements, and musical composition).
2. Harold Bloom (an American professor and prominent literary and cultural critic) has named him as one of the four major American novelists of his time.
3. Was awarded the Faulkner prize for a first novel.
4. Was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for creative writing.
5. Was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.
6. Was awarded the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award.
7. McCarthy was awarded the James Tait Black Memorial Prize for Fiction.

Books like "The Road", "Blood Meridian", "All the pretty horses", and "No country for old men" are considered masterpieces by the majority of literary critics. His books have, and continue to be made into movies. He is highly respected among his peers. He's often compared to Faulkner.

More important than all of the above though is just to read him. Read his books. The man is simply incredible. It doesn't take a literary theorist to recognize that McCarthy's writing is brilliant. He has a vocabulary of biblical proportions, and is a true words smith.

The case can be made for a couple of other writers, like Coetzee and Roth, and among those three it may be a matter of preference, but it's indisputable that McCarthy is top 5. That's why I said he's "probably" the greatest living writer.


He is not amused.

[Ugly Bastard]

Did you just insinuate that determining the "greatest living writer in the world" isn't an entirely subjective endeavor? I dunno about that...

edit: I'm sure this guy is a fine writer.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Yessir I did. Like I said, it's pretty subjective, but you can come to logical conclusions based on facts. A more fair declaration would have been he is one of the greatest living writers.