Ohh yes, god forbid ever having to work. That is for the lesser people. The ones not so gifted with a mind that can see reality for what it really is.
It's not "work" that is the problem. It's the kinds of meaningless jobs of pure drudgery and slavery-like menial tasks that I'm talking about. For some people, lots of practical work isn't so bad. You get to talk to people. You get to help people. You get to solve problems. You push buttons and process people's transactions. This is all good stuff -- not necessarily work that lacks integrity or an adequate amount of human dignity. Yet it's for
some people. I personally don't like people, small talk, socializing, mindlessly pushing buttons, or solving certain technical problems with which I associate no amount of passion. Sadly, this is a majority of all jobs out there. So it's not "work" that's bad; it's the "kind of work" which exists that I take issue with. It's simply tends to be jobs I find incompatible with my own traits, for the most part.
Also, work is by no means for "lesser people." Work can be a very good and meaningful thing, so long as the person feels that they are contributing to society in a dignified fashion. Again, most forms of work aren't something I'd called dignified, but for others they can be very meaningful. So I don't hold a moronic absolute black and white rule of "people who work = tools" and "people who don't work = kings." That's not at all what I'm talking about, even if many people indeed can be exploited by those in power to work for bad prices and such.
And sure, you're somewhat catching onto my outlook. The ability to see reality for what it's worth -- to really see the complex dynamics and relationships which exist in the giant interplay of workers and administrators/managers really does go a long way in shaping the way I see work. To me, some people seem to grab the best forms of labor for themselves (where they sit around doing enjoyable work), leaving the worst ones for others. Those that will reap the greatest benefits for those in powerful positions are considered "valuable," while those which are not beneficial are labeled "useless." Clearly, I realize that philosophical work is considered useless simply because it does not benefit people in a direct and straightforward physical manner. It lacks any real utility (i.e., it's not very "profitable"). Therefore, it's labeled useless, and I am "advised" to seek alternative forms of labor. Yet I hold it as a principle that humans should only offer labor as a service to a community if such labor is absolutely similar enough to the person's psychological traits to be considered "dignified." Should I labor simply because other people got to the cookie jar first, based on a plethora of factors for the most part out of their control, or mine? Should I labor in a system in which there clearly exists unfair forms of job allocation such as nepotism? Should I labor in a system which merely happens to value certain forms of work over others, whereas other cultures may not?
If I am aware that any society's values (based on their ideology) tend to have a bearing on what jobs are considered fruitful in comparison to those which are not, and if indeed such a society's values tend to overlook work which I find meaningful, why should I cave in and succumb to such social trends? Because that's all any of this really is. Economic and social trends that go round and round, where the allocation of resources, goods, and jobs is affected by numerous social factors that prevent any notion of actual
justice. Just to mention a few: 1) educational inequality, 2) racial inequality, 3) socioeconomic inequality, 4) wealth inheritance, and all of the various problems with flow from these few things, among others. To put it simply: we have simply not reached a point adequate enough so that people truly can feel confident in knowing that the positions they acquired were gained due to some personal effort or traits, and nothing else. Instead, people are expected to work in a sea of meaningless drudgery, where with enough money or unethical trickery, some individuals can move higher up the hierarchical ladder, such that the best jobs are secured for themselves (and clearly, this likely happens all the time). In a system such as ours (with lobbying, interest groups, the iron triangle, and political contributions) it's not hard to see how money can buy anything, right along with social connections and a lot of kiss-assing (which is what students are taught to do right out of high school, just to get them well acquainted with that sort of behavior, as they'll have to bend over and take it up the pooper their entire adult lives, for some boss or manager they entirely loath).
In sum, then, I can see the bullshit inequality and inherent human favoritism and social tendencies humans tend to have when it comes to the allocation of all things in civil society. On the whole, some win and some lose, and usually through no fault of their own. We have not secured principles strong enough to prevent the many inefficient and unjust trends which occur in job allocation today (such as Rawlsian "justice as fairness," as an example). As a result, I see no point in surrendering myself to the will of others who expect some people to give, give, and give, when the very inclination to work and contribute in society is absolutely predicated upon the notion that we will all benefit from such social cooperation. Yet as we clearly see, not everyone benefits from today's social structure. Some end up practically slaves serving the will of other men (poor taxi cab drivers, maids, and waiters), while some end up kings of society, with their boots spit shined, their champagne, their yachts, their cheap hookers behind their wive's backs, their drugs, and their constant parties (such as rich kids, wall street crooks, and clueless socialites). As such, it seems reasonable to me that if I am going to work in a crooked system which forces people to work, which does not benefit most of them (but which benefits a few select portion of the populace) and which goes about labor in a fashion (capitalism) which randomly happens to work in the favor of some individuals over others (e.g., those who would like to be bank tellers or accountants vs. those would like to be artists, musicians, or writers), I should aspire to become what I want rather simply accept any particular "conditions" which may arbitrarily exist for me. In essence, the system isn't fair in more than one way, and arbitrary social factors bear down upon all of us (for better or worse), so on what basis can I consider it justified that I should feel compelled to offer my labor to such a system? It's irrational.
Thus, as I see it, I have no obligation to this type of society, given its current state. Its methods of job allocation and value-system are not in alignment with my own view of things (my ability to imagine a much more efficient and fair system which accommodates human diversity rather than just valuing profits and treating a large number of people merely as economic commodities, or objects). Given I think people should consciously choose to work for any given community on the basis that they feel that job allocation is "legitimate," just as people believe people should accept any government on the basis of political legitimacy (i.e., it treats them properly and grants them some form of power), I cannot say that I should simply work in some random area of labor, where profits are most high (simply because we only care about profits in today's economic landscape), just so I can "make rent." Sadly, I do not value profits and I do not accept arbitrary job positions that really have little to do with people's particular traits (but more to do with stuff like ass-kissing, as I said earlier). Competition is a silly concept that basically means, "Try your best to conform!" The one who does the best job acting like society's little bitch gets the cookie. It's a rat race. And clearly, that form of subjugation is unacceptable. So, if I want to contribute to a community (on my own terms) by potentially teaching philosophy, then so be it. If I want to, I will. If I don't, I really don't think society's in a position to truly justify the notion that I "must work in an unfavorable system." And regardless, given I realize that society will not likely change any time soon, I'd sooner accept a crappy job and rebelliously disregard society's arbitrary expectations (by learning philosophy as I personally wish to), so long as I even have the
chance of becoming what I want in such a broken system. Thus, again, you should be glad that you don't have principles which conflict with the very nature of today's social and economic trends, or that you have an interest in working practical jobs that you don't absolutely loathe, and that such jobs are available to you (rather than considered and deemed "useless" by those who greedily place profits above all else). Crying about a boring PhD program is spilled milk. The world clearly somewhat mirrors your interests, as you seem to enjoy the subject matter.
Have you ever labored? Hands blistered and bleeding from weeks of shoveling dirt? Manual labor 12 hour days in 60 degrees Celsius heat? Pick recyclate from landfill? I know I have.
The fact that you have labored in such conditions has nothing to do with whether or not such labor was justified. Moreover, some people are better capable of dealing with such harsh manual labor, while some are better off dealing with children, some with patients, some with numbers, some with moving vehicles, some with machinery, some with customers, and some with administration. Thus, even the lowest jobs can be better suited to certain people over others, due to their psychological traits. As I have said, my traits do not match most jobs. My traits match highly impractical work which is not very profitable. Creativity, logical abstract reasoning, design, etc. Certainly much of this is only profitable in the case of an extreme amount of talent, which makes it very difficult to translate into great work. And again, have you ever given two thoughts as to why it was you, specifically, who had to work in this way? Some people never work, sit around playing video games, and live off of mommy and daddy's money, while they throw lavish parties, have sex with the best looking people, blow their money on all kinds of quality goods, and get piggy packed up all the way to a great job. Why do some people have to work in heal, while some do not, merely because one had money and the other did not? Clearly, your very own experiences with such (what most people would call) tedious labor are likely unjust.
At any rate, by "tedious," I did not necessarily mean "manual labor." I meant a majority of all jobs out there, including elementary teachers, clerks, cashiers, bank tellers, nursery people, administrators, photographers, firefighters, carpenters, etc, etc., etc. In short, the jobs I would enjoy are either very hard to get or highly impractical. They're very uncommon and therefore only a handful of people ever get them. Those that are abundant are usually not at all compatible with my logical, creative mental framework. So again, there are problems out in the world of work, and some people eventually find suitable positions, while others may never actually enjoy the work they do. That is a problem, as some people never really get a rational choice in determining how they want to work, or the work they desire may be devalued according to narrow-minded profit values. All these problems support my argument.
Well, good luck with your endeavors. Don't think of too many social reform ideas such as distributed justice. You will just creating more ideas for me to render to the dust bin of history.
I'm sure it would be a very good thing for society if those people who did offer revolutionary ideas of social reform simply started to believe -- due to the infection of the valuing of profits at all costs -- that they should simply have learned a practical trade and become engineers instead, rather than "waste time" on such silly ideas. Right... No offense, but you embody everything that I find problematic with the world today. Ideas and questions are devalued, while resource exploitation and "business" is placed on a silly pedestal. This type of philistine thinking and "concern for results and profits" is highly anti-intellectual, and it largely accounts for the negative social conditions of which I speak. People like you would rather build a house than question whether or not such a house should have been built in the first place. It is a pity and I do hope you have fun sucking this world dry of everything it has to offer simple, materialistic, anti-philosophical people such as yourself. I will try my best to have no part in it. I am a person of thought, not mindless action and easy profits. I could care less about the very concept of profit. It is a nasty disease.
Good day.
