Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ValyrianJedi t1_j6ni0vl wrote

Reply to comment by doodcool612 in Happiness is an essentially nihilistic ideal — it is the best goal to follow when there is nothing else on the table. A meaningful life on the other hand can embrace more of life including struggles and suffering because it is oriented towards a higher ideal by thelivingphilosophy

Musk may be a complete schmuck, but it's a massive stretch to say that he hasn't done a whole lot of meaningful things... He did a decent bit to revolutionize usage of the internet in his early days, he's been at the absolute forefront of both the push to EVs and the push for green energy production and storage, and he has revolution travel and access to space and provided strong internet to a whole lot of places where it wasn't previously an option, which wad a game changer for a lot of people?

Massive tool? Definitely. Massive meaningful impact? Also definitely.

−8

doodcool612 t1_j6njuxg wrote

I think this “thing good = meaning” argument misses the value of the mission.

Imagine a feudalist lord who owns a castle. He orders his serf to build this new invention called “the hoe.” It’s amazing. It revolutionizes farming, feeds a bunch of people, yadda yadda.

Should I use that feudal lord as an examplar for the meaningful life? No, he did good stuff to perpetuate a system that is awful. Also, he didn’t do jack shit. He’s not a hoe engineer. He just owned stuff and gave orders and raked in the profit.

For crying out loud, we might as well use Trump as the example of the reflective philosopher out there carefully crafting a meaningful life like a work of art just because he instinctively grabbed at power like an especially selfish toddler.

17

ValyrianJedi t1_j6nknnm wrote

Commissioning a guy to make a hoe is drastically different than taking your entire fortune (that you made from a company that you started and did the majority of the work on yourself) and putting it towards a goal that betters the world.

−17

doodcool612 t1_j6nmfl2 wrote

I honestly do not believe he’s making the world a better place. I don’t share the assumption that the feudal lord’s investment into the hoe project can be plausibly interpreted as some kind of charitable sacrifice. Any account as to whether he’s doing a good thing for the world must ask “Why is he giving orders at all?” “Why did he get to decide what kind of society would be good for the rest of us?” “Is he building a world that replicates our current abuses?” That kind of arbitrary exercise of power isn’t some deeply reflective sacrifice. It’s just narcissism.

13

ahhwell t1_j6nthjw wrote

>I don’t share the assumption that the feudal lord’s investment into the hoe project can be plausibly interpreted as some kind of charitable sacrifice.

Whether the feudal lord's investment was altruistic or selfish, the outcome is still a better hoe. That better hoe results in higher crop yields compared to work done. That's good. If those higher crop yields go entirely towards banquets for the lord, then the "good" is very limited compared to if it was distributed to the peasants. But it's very hard to see how those higher yields, on their own, could be "bad".

−5

doodcool612 t1_j6nzr5k wrote

I don’t think the results are bad. I think good results are necessary but not sufficient for a meaningful project.

4

ValyrianJedi t1_j6nnmg5 wrote

Yeah there is just no chance of us agreeing on this one

−7