> One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious.
From what I encounter, almost daily, I don't think everyone is on the same page, on that; especially amongst folks of means.
I have seen people without a pot to piss in, treat others -even complete strangers- with respect, love, caring, and patience, and folks with a lot of money, treat others most barbarously; especially when they consider those "others," to be folks that don't have the capability to hit back or stand up for themselves.
As to what I do, I've been working to provide free software development to organizations that help each other, for a long time. It's usually worked out, but it is definitely a labor of love. The rewards aren't especially concrete. I'll never get an award, never make any money at it, and many of the folks that I have helped, have been fairly curt in their response.
I do it anyway.
People should just choose to have wealthier parents, then they have more options from which to chose what to do - breed dogs, travel, get a degree in a totally useless but culturally enriching subject, make some great garage music, tinker with inventing or explore some arcane area of math, have kids, read voraciously, write a bad game or operating system etc.
It seems these sorts of things happened more in the 1980s, when we had lower inequality - middle class post-teens could pretend to study while actually learning something in their free time.
Now students are burdened with debt before they even get started, and have too many part time gig jobs to attend lectures, or mope around the campus having random conversations that challenge their ideas.
> On the other hand, if you make something amazing, you'll often be helping people or the world even if you didn't mean to. Newton was driven by curiosity and ambition, not by any practical effect his work might have, and yet the practical effect of his work has been enormous. And this seems the rule rather than the exception. So if you think you can make something amazing, you should probably just go ahead and do it.
I dislike the way this is framed and I think the rule/exception are inverted. Certainly, building the jet engine or microprocessor is a big uplift on all boats, but the chances you pull one of these out of the hat are pretty low.
I spent a good chunk of my career attempting to build things that I thought were amazing. It took a lot of drama and disappointment to discover that helping other people means meeting them where they are at right now, not where I want them to be.
Yeah , the missing ingredient here is “SERVE PEOPLE”. That needs a market familiarity .
I think the issue with saying “make good new things” is that things themselves aren’t inherently good or bad—they’re just things. It’s the person who makes them that can be good or bad.
I have a saying (among others from my dad) that captures a similar idea: “Make things, and be good.”
Things can be good or bad when put in a value system context. There is tremendous overlap between everyone's value system, it just doesn't feel this way because the majority of most people's attention is on where they don't overlap.
A loaf of bread is good for a person who is starving, but less good to someone with celiac disease. A bowl or rice is more good to a starving person with celiac than a loaf of bread, etc.
a dish from made bad food is bad food. a program that deletes your important data is a bad program.
so no: things relate to each other and in this relation, they can be objectively bad (bad to the object subjected to its effects). Things don't exist without the effects their existence exerts. Rephrased: the question of their goodness is, commonly, a question of fitness.
That just pushes the question off a step; a chair fit for sitting isn't fit for sleeping, etc. Fitness assumes a purpose.
I think it’s good in the sense of things that are positively affecting others’ lives.
I disagree that creating new things should be prioritised[0]. There's too many things already and the most pressing problems have solutions which are not new, just hard to apply for political reasons.
[0] Saying "prioritised" instead of "good", because "creating good new things" is tautologically, uninterestingly "good".
> There's too many things already
In what sense?
History hasn't finished. There's more things today than there were yesterday, and there will be more things tomorrow than there are today.
If you stop making new things because you think there's already enough things, you're just confining yourself to the world as it exists today. Do you think the world has finished? Do you think it can't be improved?
If you want to build the world of tomorrow you're going to have to make some of the things that exist tomorrow that don't exist today.
And once you've accepted that you need to make new things, I don't think it's much of a leap to accept that it's good to make good new things.
Not everyone can create new things, or create new things all the time. The rest of the time they can make better use of existing things
That too, but my disagreement is more fundamental: even if you can create good new things, there are probably[0] better things to do with your resources than creating them.
[0] This is a small escape hatch for "what if one can only create new things" or "actual cure for cancer".
Yes absolutely, you can do both.
One good thing about new ideas is that it becomes an enabler for everyone else who are not working on new ideas. Similar to how technology democratises peoples abilities.
If something is difficult/impossible to apply for political reasons, maybe something new can make it easier/possible.
It might be a new philosophy, message, movement, technology, space, gathering, poem, or otherwise.
If something is so hard to do, for political reasons, it might be time to try something new. The goal might be the same, but maybe a new approach will yield better results.
Political problems can be solved with technical solutions. Take the problem of food insecurity in third-world countries as an example. It's a hard problem to solve because transporting food overland via unpaved roads through politically unstable areas is expensive and dangerous. Long-term, using highly-productive first-world agribusiness to feed the third-world will fail, because no matter how cheaply agribusiness can produce food the transportation costs will make the whole enterprise cost prohibitive. This is a political problem: we can easily produce enough food to feed the entire world, but we can't get that food to the places where it is most needed due to political instability. But it's a political problem with an engineering solution. If the tools and techniques needed to efficiently grow food are cheap and widely available, farmers in politically unstable areas can simply grow their own food without a dependence on far away agribusiness. GMO crops crafted for nutritional value and hardiness, easily accessible guides on farming best practices, weather forecasting, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, financial markets to hedge against risk, cheap tools and machinery; these are all unsolved or partially solved problems. Whenever someone comes up with a "good new thing" that improves the SOTA in terms of value per dollar in one of these areas, we get closer to solving the political problem of global food security.
If political realities prevent us from solving problems, then we can either change the political realities or create new solutions. Individuals generally can't change political realities, but they can create good new things that work around them. So it is good advice.
(No implied critique of the actual essay) but when I saw that title from PG, I was really hoping it would address the 2025 question "What should one do now?"
At a time when it seems like so many pursuits or activities or things to make are overshadowed by " but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?", not to mention all the other present world uncertainties...
Well, it would be nice to hear more thought as to how to focus one's energies.
(I have my own thoughts on this of course, but what I'm really advocating / hoping for is more strong takes on the question.)
> "but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?"
Then you've got 6 months to cement your place in history as one of the last humans ever to have accomplished that thing before AI could do it. Hurry!
(More generally, even if you don't care about AI: if you think you might want to do something, then depending on your age you've got maybe 50 years to do it before you've squandered your opportunity. Hurry!)
I realize it's PG, but sounds AI written at this point.
Since you know it's not ai written, and very unlikely AI influenced, you are saying you can't distinguish the two. Im not claiming I can.
How do we know it's not. Maybe PG wrote it and had AI "clean it up" or "transform it" for a particular audience, or any number of things AI might have conjured up here. If you cannot demonstrate that PG wrote the entirety of this himself with no AI help, then your comment is mostly worthless.
I've found many of pg's essays very illuminating, but a few of the more recent ones seem less well thought out. Maybe I've just learned a lot over the last decade and it's me who has changed, or maybe his process has changed.
The first thought I had after reading the thesis of the essay is that some people don't make new things but instead maintain important things. I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of people are maintainers.
Nurses, electricians, emergency dispatchers, firefighters, mechanics, etc.
We all depend on many complex systems working in order for our lives to not fall apart. Our homes, electricity, running water, soap manufacturing, etc. Choosing to be someone who makes sure these systems keep working is a good thing to do and deserves respect and appreciation. Someday AI may do all this stuff, but someday AI may build all the new things too...
So my response to this specific essay: PG, your answer is incomplete and biased towards your own values. ikigai does a better job of answering this question already, why not build on it? Also thanks for your writing, don't stop.
My biased answer to the question: - do lots of different things and stay curious, and with enough time, effort and luck you will find something you're good at, enjoy, the world wants, and will reward you with all the resources you need and then some. Just keep doing different things and being curious until you get there.
One last thought: Is PG publishing less robust essays in hopes that people will be more compelled to comment and discuss them, bringing together the best ideas on the topic? Something like "the best way to get a question answered on the internet is to post the wrong answer" or however that goes...
I had completely the same thought. No everyone is a creator, and we don't want to bias the world into everyone being a creator, or a scientist, or an engineer.
Today, I feel we have far too much of a focus on "business" and all my nieces and nephew are studying some sort of business focus in their university degrees. I feel it such a waste. If everyone in the world learns to only make businesses (ignoring that a degree is not required for that), who is going to build. If everyone becomes a maker, who is going to support all the non-maker roles.
There are many people for whom their job is not their craft. They're focus - much as PGs now is, is the raising of their family, guiding their children to become good people, showing love, etc etc.
Some may argue this is "making", but that's maybe a different argument.
Your last thought is an interesting one, I hadn't heard the quote before.
> I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of people are maintainers.
A dichotomy like "builder"/"maintainer" just doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Let's take software as example:
- Is someone that pushes their project from version 1.2.1 to 1.4.7 a "builder"?
- Are Linux contributors "builders"?
- Is someone porting CLI Y to rust a "builder"?
- Is someone that wraps a GenAI LLM into a web app a "builder"?
- Is someone in offensive security a "builder" of something?
...or let's ask it differently:
- Is performance optimization "maintenance"?
- Is the fix that prevents a user of your software from accomplishing their task "maintenance"?
- Is the work on a solid infrastructure, one that brings your time to resolution (TTR) closer to zero, the work of a "maintainer"?
- Is a dependency upgrade in your project the work of a "maintainer"?
Everybody builds and maintains all the time, and every artifact once built is in need of maintenance. Technological advancements will always be a collective effort through some form of feedback. Whether you're (re-)building something frequently [0] or advancing through maintenance [1], both are just categories of equal practice.
[0]: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/how-japan-makes-houses...
Somewhat similar to my answer (borrowed from children's publisher Klutz Press): "Create wonderful things, be good, have fun"
https://charlieharrington.com/create-wonderful-things-be-goo...
This is a great inspiring story and wonderful books. Thank you! Trying to find them now.
There's a book about knots by Klutz that was featured here. Comes with string(s) attached.
I don't remember too many knots, but anything that stuck was learned from that book. Amazing product: subject, content, presentation and quality construction!
My only complaint: I remember it was hard to make it fit on my bookshelf :)
I'm not a frayed knot.
> you should at least make sure that the new things you make don't net harm people or the world.
How?
Is the internet a net positive or net negative thing? How about Social Media? Is it maybe even more complex such that we can't tally up positive/negative "points" and a term like "net positive" doesn't even make sense for these things?
Ok, but don’t make an algorithm for a sports gambling app that notices when people are struggling to quit and targets them with promotions.
It's a hard question to answer but not impossible.
Here's a bit of an oversimplification: - is what you made useful to anyone? If it's not, no one will use it so it doesn't matter. - does what you made help people be more productive or less productive? - does it help improve people's health or degrade it? - does it give people what they want in the short term at the cost of harming them in the long term? - does it help some people while actively harming others? - does it help people but harm the environment or other creatures?
Etc.
Most failure comes from not getting past the first question. These are easy questions to ask but very hard to answer. Most startup founders make up answers and then go nowhere and waste a bunch of time/money. Even smart people doing their best fall into this trap. Our system isn't good at developing people to be good at empathizing at scale. When people try to empathize at scale they over-generalize to the point of near meaninglessness.
Side question - why do all PG essays are formatted in a such a narrow text column ?
I can say what not to do -- Do not ever work to strip others of their free will.
Could bankrolling cryptocoin and AI businesses ever cause people to lose their freedom?
Asking for a friend
Is Paul giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?
("making things rather than, say, making critical observations about things other people have made. Those are ideas too, and sometimes valuable ones, but it's easy to trick oneself into believing they're more valuable than they are. Criticism seems sophisticated")
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/07/20
"thoughts by a billionaire. self-praising. spiritually enriching. sophisticated. 'high' value"
"thoughts by a commoner. critical. base. self-deluding juvenile hack work. 'low' value"
"thoughts by a billionaire about how critics are delusional and self-important. Sophisticated irony. philosophically challenging. 'high' value"
"suppose I say the author is giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?"
"sophomoric. intellectually sterile. 'low' value"
Great comic.
Reminds me of my own "ai art", The Marlboro Man riding a chrome blow up dog.
"sophomoric. intellectually sterile. 'low' value"
I read it more like he's considering what to throw his money at, and it sounds like he wants to throw his money at companies that make good new things.
But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after the fact.
Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight".
It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.
His essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any conclusion you want.
Any second thoughts about Flock (YC17) or others?
With his multiple endorsements of MAGA I fear his definition of "good" is severley warped. Is ensuring the poor don't die of preventable diseases good? Not to this guy.
Yeah, this feels like an attempt to (partially preemptively?) rehabilitate his image/legacy more than anything. If he makes a blog saying how important it is to "make good new things", then surely everything he makes is a good new thing! No need to look further to see what he actually supports.
I find this essay quite bland, inane even.
I find that with Paul Graham's writing, once you stop and think about what he's saying, almost nothing he says holds up under scrutiny. He's basically just a propagandist for VC-backed startups and a certain concomitant worldview.
20 years old in a few days; still relevant: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
Read his entire body of work if you want deep thought, thorough research and definitive opinions.
[flagged]
I don't believe you can choose to make good (whatever that means) things. You can certainly choose not to try, but choosing to try and believing you'll succeed is a recipe for disappointment in my opinion. All you can do is make a sincere effort at whatever you choose to do and the world will decide if it's good or not.
You can use it as a guiding principle and go about your life.
Glad this has been unflagged. It's a boring essay, with nothing of substance said, but that doesn't make it worth flagging.
I found myself thinking about something similar recently. It had to do with the Optifye.ai fiasco, and the difference between solving problems / creating things for the 'common man' vs. for the 'ruling class'. I think I much prefer the former.
Is making music something "good and new"? Art?
Explicitly yes:
> I mean new things in a very general sense. Newton's physics was a good new thing. Indeed, the first version of this principle was to have good new ideas. But that didn't seem general enough: it didn't include making art or music, for example, except insofar as they embody new ideas.
What to Do- besides the help others and care of the world, plan for your future retirement, most don't. Seek education by reading as much as you can. Stay interested in your family. Desperately seek out beauty. Cultivate your sense of humor, even if it's a little snarky. Be who you want to be, as long as it won't hurt anyone, including yourself. (I'm afraid too many of us are afraid to stand out today, group mentality, on the whole, is toxic and can lead to "us vs them" stupidity.)
What not to do (just as important)- Suck. Be nosy, passive aggressive, judgmental or hateful. Allow yourself to be duped because you're to lazy to seek out information.
Every single essay is the same from this guy.
Make something amazing is not an insight.
This. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing, with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.
Shallow platitudes for nerds? I’ll inject them straight into my veins if the guy dealing has enough money. I mean is a successful tech entrepreneur and visionary.
> "Criticism seems sophisticated, and making new things often seems awkward, especially at first; and yet it's precisely those first steps that are most rare and valuable."
This is what makes silicon valley is so amazing. It's filled with those who want to make good new things, who aren't afraid of looking awkward. This type of culture is actually quite weird. In most other places, you'd be dissuaded by conventional wisdom, or "who-do-you-think-you-are-isms".
> It's filled with those who want to make good new things
It's crazy you think this is even remotely unique to SV. Broad swaths of the country (referred to as "flyover" by coastal people) are fully employed in the production of new things that are essential to the survival of the human race.
Just, for some reason, you think "new things" is just bleep bloop and not moo oink.
Not the first time I find myself wishing there was some explanation about the flagging.
The explanation is basically always the same: users flagged it.
Why? Who can say? One would have to ask them, and that wouldn't work anyhow.
Well you could have a dropdown with reasons when flagging, and hope that people select the real reason they are flagging it.
When you say "hope", I think you're touching on the problem, which is that they wouldn't.
I did not flag this, but I've flagged stuff before that I don't want to see more of on HN because it feels like it would ruin what I enjoy. If I need "Person did X - What happened next will surprise you", I'd go to reddit, so I'll flag that type of low-quality content.
I don't know why people flagged this, but I often had the impression that PG's content ends up on the front page because he's PG, not because it's particularly interesting or noteworthy. Maybe the people flagging it feel similar.
Until I hear a vote of no confidence from Paul for YC’s current leadership, I have no interest in anything he has to say. After all, Elon Musk — the guy cheerfully and illegally dismantling the federal government, who called my friends “parasites” for taking benefits and apparently wants to see witnesses against the president executed, who enthusiastically supports far-right populist parties like the AfD and makes suspiciously Nazi-looking salutes on stage — is still invited to YC’s AI Startup School. Garry Tan, it seems, has no problem with any of this. I’m sure he relishes a new world order where he sits on the board of Yarvin’s fever dream government.
Want to do something good, Paul? Do everything in your power to stem the bleed of encroaching fascism and neo-reactionaryism. Put your reputation and wallet on the line. Be a leader. Otherwise, you’re just posting platitudes while one of the world’s great democracies dies an agonizing death by the hands of your peers.
I personally don't think technology for the most part is good for society. It makes nature boring and predictable and life less interesting as a whole if this is true, but I don't think we even understand the degree to which technology is just ruining life for the future. We don't have adaptations to deal with anything and adaptations take tens of thousands of years if not way more to occur. The romantic thought is that technology can help us solve the problems that come up as a result of itself, but I'm less optimistic there just because of how things have been going. It seems like human nature and us not being good at understanding large complex systems as a species results in the malignant actors and developments taking root and metastasizing over time.
- global warming - antibiotic resistance - environmental contamination - food quality diminishing - explosive increase in chronic disease, especially in young people - extinction of most other species - fertility problems - declining birth rates - poly-pharmacy becoming normal - now things related to energy consumption with AI and cryptocurrency - huge decline in social behaviors across the population
Just seems like for every new advancement we're making new chronic issues that are barely incentivized at all for being managed and alleviated
At the beginning of the 1800s, half of people's children died. We literally beat fucking Thanos for children. That's not a 'romantic thought'.
The issue is not technology but how and where it is applied.
Tens and tens of billions are spent to generate cute pics instead of same tech applied to radiology, diseases cure, etc.
The wheel is technology, metallurgy is technology, irrigation is technology.
Technology is vital to a functioning society.
There's certainly more debate to be had whether various bits of modern technology are net positive or net negative, but even still I personally believe modern technology is mostly neutral to very good for humanity in a vacuum and it is other forces like modern capitalism that bend it toward being harmful.
eg. Social media is very clearly having a net negative impact on modern society, but I don't believe that would still be true if it wasn't driven by algorithms created to maximize ad revenue above all other concerns.
And obviously there is some inherent coupling of modern technology and capitalism that isn't avoidable, but I don't think capitalism on its own is wholly bad, its the slavish cult-like worship of it as the only way to do things that causes it to be so destructive.
> The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. > And the best kind of thinking, or more precisely the best proof that one has thought well, is to make good new things. > ... but making good new things is a should in the sense that this is how to live to one's full potential.
I urge you not to take these opinions as facts. Originality is admirable, but it is not "your potential", "proof of great thoughts", or "the most impressive thing you can do".
The answer to the question: What to do? is not "Make new things", but rather begins with a simple question: In what context?
The idea of dividing people into two categories: 1) those who "take care of people and the world", and those who 2) "make good new things", is harmful.
> you should at least make sure that the new things you make don't net harm people or the world
That's rich coming from pg. Is he really in a position to dispense this valuable advice? Did he ever look back at his contributions to this world through this prism? Does he consider the impacts of friends he has, platforms he uses and promotes, posts he writes, on lives of other people? Does he think just withdrawing from new decisions made by (the thing) is enough to wash his hands from all the negative impacts such decisions cause? People tend to attribute good outcomes to their own contributions and hand wave bad ones to forces outside their control, and this article is a great case in point for this phenomena.
I don't think pg does net harm. Obviously funding hundreds of start ups you might think some iffy but overall it seems positive?
Hey guys, while some of the criticism in the comments is pretty sound, keep in mind that genuine authors (and PG too) write first of all to entertain themselves, as a way to have a more clear reflection on their thinking. And they publish to learn from readers' responses.
I don't understand the point of your comment.
Are you saying we shouldn't take his seriously? We shouldn't take him literally? We should give him a pass for writing axiomatic drivel with nothing concrete or thoughtful in it?
Do? Make money enough to support self and family and then have a good family.
Understand people. With all the talk in the news about the current Disney Snow White, got out the DVD for the old Disney Cinderella: Yup, have learned enough about people to see that the many plot events are not just incidental for the drama but examples of deep fundamentals about people. In particular understand what's important for good family formation.
Understand human societies, e.g., cultures, religions, economies, politics, war and peace.
Understand academics: E.g., a lot of academics that has done research that results in good tools to enable "Make good new things" has deep contempt for doing that.
Understand, say, math, physical science, biology, medical science, nature, technology, fine arts.
Find a higher purpose
> For most of history the question "What should one do?" got much the same answer everywhere
This is so not true, that I'd like to point the author, and people who think in a similar vein, to a very enjoyable podcast on the history of philosophy, namely the "History of Philosophy without any Gaps" [1].
Hopefully this will persuade you that there are many ways to think about what to do with the life that was given to you. Pick two random Greek philosophers and they would probably take opposing standpoints. And if Confucius might say that you should be wise, I guess that Lao Tse would promptly disagree.
Our Western culture has largely been shaped by Christian values, yet when I observe the ideas of the obscenely wealthy, I can only lament how little those values seem to be understood or embodied.
The author has a phd in philosophy.
This comment is a bit puzzling to me.
The author of the podcast does indeed have a PhD in philosophy, but Paul Graham does not. The latter holds a PhD in computer science.
PG seems to love making grand statements like this regarding things about which he has little knowledge.
Reminded me instantly of the 1845 text Who Is to Blame? [1] and the 1863 follow-up What Is to Be Done? [2] that defined progressive thought in Russian until the 1917 revolution.
But this text is so escapist... I am ashamed to have read it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel)
[flagged]
Nothing like your embarrassment when you find out this very website is owned by YC.
Protests are usually found outside the gates, not in the lounge while sipping on the complimentary coffee.
I appreciate your intentions but can you please not break the site guidelines the way you've been doing in this thread? It just makes things worse.
"Make good new things" overlooks a critical tension: that goodness itself remains contested territory. The most transformative innovations reveal that creation's power cuts both ways. The printing press spread knowledge and literacy but also enabled propaganda wars and religious conflicts. Nuclear fission powers cities with clean energy but also destroyed Hiroshima & Nagasaki and created existential risk. The internet connects billions across continents while weakening community bonds and fragmenting our shared reality. Each breakthrough that advances humanity also challenges our moral certainties.
This suggests we need a fourth principle: "Cultivate discernment about goodness." Not merely as an afterthought, but as an essential companion to creation. Such discernment acknowledges that innovation contains both medicine and poison in the same vessel—and that our capacity to create has outpaced our ability to foresee consequences. And perhaps equally important is recognizing that meaningful contribution isn't always about creating anew, but often about cultivating what already exists: preserving, interpreting, and transmitting knowledge and practices in ways that transform both the cultivator and what is cultivated.
Yet Graham's framing—"What should one do?"—contains a deeper limitation. It positions ethics as an individual pursuit in an age where our greatest challenges are fundamentally collective. "What should one do?" seems personal, but in our connected world, doesn't the answer depend increasingly on what seven billion others are doing? When more people than ever can create or cultivate, our challenge becomes coordinating this massive, parallel work toward flourishing rather than conflict and destruction.
These principles aren't merely personal guideposts but the architecture for civilization's operating system. They point toward our central challenge: how to organize creativity and cultivation at planetary scale; how to balance the brilliant chaos of individual and organizational impetus with the steady hand of collective welfare. This balance requires new forms of governance that can channel our pursuits toward shared flourishing—neither controlling too tightly nor letting things run wild. It calls for institutions that learn and adapt as quickly as the world changes. And it asks us to embrace both freedom of pursuit and responsibility to others, seeing them as two sides of the same coin in a world where what you bring forth may shape my future.
The question isn't just what should I do, but what should we become?
This is clearly chatgpt generated.
I don't think so. It's just in the kind of English that we are taught in order to become unable to be heard.
Even if it were GPT-generated, why do you say it as if that's a bad thing? I thought this forum was gushing about how great AI is!
Generated comments aren't allowed on HN, which is a place for conversation between humans.
(Preferably involving as little repetition as possible.)
Because people post repetitive things anyway.
It's not as if one can control these things just by setting rules or asking nicely! The most we can do is influence things around the edges a little.
I'm on HN to read about human written original/derived thinking.
If poll is taken, I think vast majority HN user won't prefer any AI generated comment.
These comments honestly just mock readers.
If someone can't be bothered to write something, I can't be arsed to read it. I am not here to consume strings of text, but to interact with other people.
>Cultivate discernment about goodness
I love that. Once people realize how difficult it is to fully understand the ethical implications of one's actions, they often arrive at the defeatist conclusion that it simply doesn't matter, that there is no real difference between good and bad.
I love the idea of "cultivating discernment about goodness" because it produces agency and accountability.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
Totally agreed. While not bad, this all expresses a somewhat familiar loneliness in the world from a successful tech guy like pg. I think it just happens here:
> The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. It may be the most impressive thing that can be done.
Something like this has been a marker for humanism since Pico della Mirandolla's famous "Oration on the Dignity of Man," for sure, if not Aristotle before that. But there is another viewpoint and set of frameworks that privileges the sociality and capacity for working together of humans. Isn't it, at least arguably, more impressive what we can build only together, rather than what any one of us has thought up at a given time? Ideas feel destined, individuals are products of their time; if I am not going to manifest some creative idea, it seems inevitable someone else will eventually. With the individual, it could always be otherwise, e.g., all the Einsteins who die in sweatshops, etc.
But what could not be otherwise is the brute force and cunning of people in general. Its much easier to replace a single CEO than it is an entire workforce.
I am not trying to be too damning, there are certainly worse formulations out there, and perhaps this is all a matter of emphasis. I also don't expect a guy like Paul Graham to be anything other than this kind of individualist; there is some necessary investment into the ego in order to live in the world he does, its fine. There is just the tinge of disappointment for me that this is still where we are at, when the world has such a surplus of ideas and deficit in solidarity.
> The printing press spread knowledge and literacy but also enabled propaganda wars and religious conflicts.
Not just that: it overturned existing power structures.
In particular, it democratized information in a never-before-seen way, and opened the door to universal literacy.
To many, many people, these in themselves would have seemed like the opposite of "good things". Even today, there are a great many people who believe strongly in the importance of top-down power structures and restricted information flow—and back in Gutenberg's day, there would have been many more, if only because that was what was common then.
And I believe this only enhances your primary point—that we need to "cultivate discernment about goodness". We need to not merely think about what is good for us, but what is good for all, and be honest with ourselves about those things.
All new inventions have tendencies to overturn existing power structure (i.e. disrupt the status quo). It's probably why certain cultures disincentivize innovation and spurn entrepreneurs.
But I think creative destruction is a net good, and I'd argue that micro-dosing on revolutions is essential for dynamism and social mobility.
pg's writing is so lazy. At best he engages with thinkers in a superficial way, further, he never expands his horizons beyond the typical cadre of classics, he says nothing of actual intellectual substance and worth, and if anything he legitimizes an uncritical stance toward the world (a sort of pseudo-intellectual neopositivism). I still think a poverty of exposure and experience in the history of philosophy and literature on the part of his audience is the only reason he gets any sort of readership.
I agree with you in the general case but I'd also add that this specific post is even worse than the usual stuff he writes.
It's a 1500 word essay that says absolutely nothing at all.
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
> I still think a poverty of exposure and experience in the history of philosophy and literature on the part of his audience is the only reason he gets any sort of readership.
That and people who hero-worship him for his role in YC and some of his other previous business and/or technical work and assume everything he does is valuable because of that.
Yeah. I've never been particularly fond of the "traditional" computing essays by Stallman et. al, but compared to PG's essays they read like Tolkien.
Maybe PG is "superficial". Hmm ... It may be that commonly drilling down as deep as can is not productive and, instead, there is some wisdom that commonly productive solutions are surprisingly simplistic, i.e., "superficial"?
To add to this: I think pg does drill down, but what he does more than most is make the effort to bring those insights back up.
Can you recommend a writer you like? Have you written anything?
"Have you done XYZ?" is such a lame counter to criticism of someone else doing XYZ badly.
You don't have to have made a movie to recognize a bad movie.
You don't have to have built a car to recognize a poorly designed car.
You don't have to have written a song to recognize unlistenable garbage.
It's not a counter, I'm looking for more information.
I can recommend several. If pg's essays have some amount of appeal to you, you are probably potentially interested in philosophy, here are just a few people who have authored works of far greater eloquence, depth, and significance than anything paul graham has ever written:
Wittgenstein, Rousseau, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault, Ryle, Montaigne, Maggie Nelson, Didion, Bertrand Russel, Jean Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Niklas Luhmann, Norbert Wiener, Hienz von Forester, Hans Georg Gadamer, Juergen Habermas, Rebeca Solnit...
And these are just the few people that came to mind off the cuff. If I bothered to look I could probably give you more.
These tech luminaries act as though no philosophy or significant social analysis or cultural criticism has happened in the west since Plato and Cicero, but it's simply...entirely untrue. There's a wealth of deep, enriching philosophical heritage to explore, and I think these bozos don't engage with it because they are either too lazy (much easier to read translations of the classics) too disingenuous (much easier to base your sophistry on material that is so old as to not be contested) , or too self righteous (they already possess the one truth birthed directly by the divine cells of their brains because they like the lisp programming language and worked at yahoo, so why bother to interact with the thought of others in a serious way?) to bother. Not to mention, they don't dare engage with the highly complex dedicated academic studies of the classics anyway. I doubt pg has done little more than read a modern translation of Cicero. Probably not even Leob, probably Penguin Random House. But hey, those ignorant of the gold vein will happily lop up pewter.
Thanks for that list. I've read about a third of Plato's dialogues (penguin classics, lol) but I'm still at the beginning of my philosophical journey. After I finish Plato I'll start reading the works of modern philosophers. There are many on your list I haven't even heard of.
Regarding pg, I think what happens is when people get rich they think that gives them deep philosophical insight into things. It's not just tech people, I think the same thing happened to Ray Dalio, for instance.
You realize that navel-gazing metaphysics and philosophy aren't the same thing, right? Your list contains such a quantity of intellectuals with low substance to verbiage ratio that I hope it was made in jest.
Regardless of potential faults in pg's writings, which are indeed more collected thoughts than essays. And I don't even agree with this one, creating should be left to those capable of doing it well (which means at least some degree of perfectionism, developed aesthetic sense and inspiration) and those rarely need external encouragement. The others should cultivate their virtue and maintain an iron will within a steel body, the world (both individuals and as a whole) would certainly benefit much more from this.
My fault for not detailing what I meant: pg's article is about the antiquity kind of philosophy answering actually important questions almost anybody alive asks himself like "how should I/one live my/his life?". This puts it in a completely different world than 20th century philosophy which is more often about metaphysics, deconstruction, post-modernism, critical theory, etc... (disclaimer: I found "Fashionable Nonsense" entertaining and have a lot of disdain for most of this).
About Russel and Wittgenstein, I obviously wasn't saying anything about their contributions to hard science. Rousseau is indeed one of the more down-to-earth thinkers listed (though his noble savage remains one of the best jokes I've ever read about).
I'll be honest with you, I think pg's writings are hard to criticize because I think they're more often "right" than not, at heart. Sure, you can criticize the lazy style that clearly doesn't aspire to be scholarly, or the broad generalizations and hand-waving (in fact, every article gets it), but arguing against the core theses isn't as easy. Though I think this one isn't one of his best days, heh.
[flagged]
[dead]
Hey, fair enough, and if you feel the article helped you reflect on your life, great.
However, the reason the lack of depth and engagement bothers me is that it is its own (perhaps unintentional) form of intellectual gatekeeping. By failing to seriously engage with much of the literary tradition, paul effectively avoids helping his readers discover this tradition, allowing them to further their reflections and develop their own ideas through further exploration. This is why I call the writing lazy specifically—it stops practically before it begins. If it's unintentional, this is laziness—deciding that a half-baked, isolated musing is worth sharing. If it's intentional, it's more malicious. A sophist benefits from ignorance. The less his audience knows the more novel or insightful his empty ideas appear.
I think the accusation of superiority is fair, I am engaging in some rhetoric myself. But the stakes are different. A comment on a community forum is not of equal potential impact as knowingly, intentionally publishing a work when you are aware that you have an audience and influence. Furthermore, it's not like pg is engaging with this particular thread of discussion or my accusation, or many for that manner. It's mostly a monologue these days.
We should demand and ask for more of leaders with influence, not less. Why set the bar lower for people we know have popularity and pull? That have platforms through which they can shape the public consciousness?
I'll also note that I only "name dropped" because someone asked. People really need to get over their emotive attachments to intelligence. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else on this forum, or even pg for that matter because I don't think questions about degrees of intelligence even make sense unless you narrowly prescribe the notion and context. Stop being insecure.
Why is this flagged? Disagreements can be expressed in comments. Weird to be honest.
I’m starting to wonder if posters are flagging everything in response to the clear political censorship going on. If everything is flagged than nothing is flagged.
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
[dead]
[flagged]
Why even go through the effort of making a criticism when you can satisfy the urge simply by pointing and implying one exists?
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
In lieu of explanation I'm guessing the flagging is knee-jerk anti-PG stuff.
Disappointing response.
Why are people anti-PG?
He comes across as vapid, self-important, and out of touch with normal non-rich people.
Regardless of whom you're putting down, how right you are, or feel you are, comments like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43370236 are badly against the site guidelines. Please don't post any more of these to HN.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I don't know except I get the impression from reading responses to him over time that he represents something frustrating to some people here and on X.
Someone should correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK - PG stands behind current shift in USA’s status quo. That is, support of MAGA, Trump, DOGE, techno takeover of USA, that vague idea of of converting USA into totalitarian corporate city states controlled by billionaire techno class.
Though last one shouldn’t be surprising as it was endorsed by YC 10+ years ago.
Hence - people are now much more critical of him.
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
p.s. No, we don't care about your politics. We care about preserving this forum, full stop.
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
I find your decision to quote these guidelines in this way both snarky and shallowly dismissive. If you can't follow your own guidelines, I certainly won't be jumping at the opportunity.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Working on it. :)
Looking forward to showing HN one day.
What more can a person do than eat, drink, and take joy in their work?
That raises the question of what work they should pursue.
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Forgive me, but I feel like these guidelines are enforced very selectively. Paul Graham's last post against "wokeness" staying on the front page for two days left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Why should his political crusades not only be allowed on here but also promoted?
Similarly, why are some DOGE posts allowed to pass through the flag-filter but not others?
I'll take your comment as a hint to take a break from HN. But please, do consider further detailing what kind of political content is acceptable or not.
Your reply would make more sense to me if I had mentioned the HN guideline against using the site for political battle, but I didn't. The guidelines I listed your comment as breaking don't have anything to do with that.
But here's a response anyhow—if you look at the past explanations here:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
you'll find exhaustive explanations of how we approach politics on HN. If you read some of that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
I should add, though, that it's too much to expect moderation to be consistent. The principles by which we moderate HN are consistent, but it's not possible to apply them consistently to all the content. There's far too much content for us to process it all, and randomness is a major factor in sevreral different ways.
A good idea and one that Elon Musk tries to do. But he chose to go into politics too. Now his every move (even every past move) seems to be under scrutiny and politicized. Of course, this isn't the first time this has happened, but it is unfortunate that human behavior today is so.
I think people are being a bit too negative and maybe that is because they are not used to pg's style of slogans in baby talk. I think the gist of what pg is saying is that you should have some agency and initiative and not spend your whole life being the side character in other people's stories. This serves two purposes. First of all, it maximizes your chances of gaining wealth, power and influence. And secondly if you care to make the world a better place, it also increases your chances of having an impact.
The novelty is important, because, tautologically, if your are just copying others, you are still a side character in their story. However, I do not think this should be read as, "create the next unicorn startup". I think it is rather a principle to live by. Like for example, if you have three job offers, go for the one that allows you to build something new, rather than the one where your task is to manage a legacy product. Or for example, let's say you move to a new city and you are a bit disappointed with the activities that are available for your kids. You can either try to convince your kids to attend the available activities or you can try to organize a new after school club.
I'm one of those people that doesn't think we should try to "take care of the world". I prefer the older, time tested answer of what to do:
> You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest
As noted in the essay, this idea of "taking care of the world" is relatively new. PG claims it's because only now we can take care of the world, but I think it's just a naive idea that doesn't stand the test of time. I'm sure its not novel idea, and many others had thought of it and tried to implement some version of it in their society. But because it hasn't become cannon in any group or culture, it's a bad idea in that it doesn't produce human flourishing. Whereas ideas around wisdom, bravery, honesty, etc have replicated throughout cultures and led to everything we cherish
The idea is that you cannot take care of the world if you can't take care of yourself. So at first you must be these things. Ironically the most empathetic people I have met that purport to care most about "the world" are often the most dysfunctional people - substance abuse, medications, no strong family ties, anxiety, neuroticism, etc. These aren't people we should try to emulate.
Only when you have your house in order can you attempt to help others. Start with the people immediately around you. People you know and love and that know and love you. If you've ever dealt with a family member with a serious problem, you'll see how difficult for you to help them. Now imagine helping a friend, then casual acquaintance, then stranger finally a stranger on the other side of the world.
We should have humility as to what kind of impact we can have on the world and look inward to those around us where we can have the most impact. Otherwise you might as well wipe out hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars spreading democracy in the middle east.
Some of the people who have done the worst things in history have been well put together people. The man who is ruthless and puts himself before everything oftentimes ends up successful, wealthy, and with plenty of resources to take care of himself and the people he chooses. Does that make him a good person?
One of the most important, time-tested values is one of responsibility and honor. That means doing the right thing with the power that you do have, both by yourself and by others, even if it hurts you. We each are responsible for the environment (natural and man-made) that we inhabit, and to that extent it is our duty to help others and ourselves.
We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well. Too often in our society we shirk that responsibility with the excuse "well, its not our problem".
Some of the most horrific atrocities have been done by people trying to " take care of the world"
> We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well.
You should use "I" rather than "we" and I would agree. I've been given the gift of life in my children and I do everything for them. Fortunately I have resources to spare and try to take care of my family and neighbors as well, and I suggest you do the same.
The best people I know do good in both local and global ways. It's not necessary to choose one or the other. I don't disagree with your examples, but I notice that they say nothing about donating money to World Vision or putting solar panels on your roof, for example. Replace these with causes you believe are good.
This might be unfair, but I'd summarise what you said as "living a charitable life, but only for people within 50km of your house", and I think it's fairly obvious that "living a charitable life, mostly for people within 50km of your house, but also you give $50 a month to an international charity and you try to generate a bit less carbon dioxide" is better for the world, better for you because you don't have to harden your heart, and wouldn't harm most people's ability to look after themselves.
I agree that it's possible to be too neurotic about this and do what Sam Bankman-Fried did. It's also possible to be a little better than average at caring for the world without much cost to yourself. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the latter.
I do, and I do so with the knowledge that this is a responsibility that has been placed on me, and others, by the gifts that have been given to me. I help others and contribute to society, as is my duty, and I expect others to do the same. I also expect the same responsibility, trustworthiness, and honor of those who have been given power.
It's rather telling that you group substance abuse together with rather common and generally benign human conditions such as anxiety and neuroticism, and I find that your rather heavy-handed generalizations of people's capacity to help others based on their conditions and indeed their trauma dilutes your point.
It's as if you wish us to say, "I've figured everything out, let me show you the way." I don't find that particularly reassuring, and it's not exactly the kind of humility that I think you want to convey.
If your bar to helping others is ending all suffering within yourself, then I'm afraid we're all going to be living a very lonely existence if we followed your lead.
Now, I think your larger point is that folks in crisis should tend to that crisis, which I think anyone who has taken a plane ride would understand. Apply the mask on yourself first. But to extend that analogy, you can have a broken hand, or even a broken heart and still be able to help your neighbor.
I like the "police your area" approach.
> "I was in the Air Force a while, and they had what they call 'policing the area,' and I think that’s a pretty good thing to go by. If everyone just takes care of their own area, then we won’t have any problems. Be here. Be present. Wherever you are, be there. And look around you, and see what needs to be changed."
-Willie Nelson
This is pretty obvious and how most people raise their kids. Parents often use the phrase "we don't do that".
12 year old asking her friend can have a social media account but she can't. TV, food habits, bedtime, etc. Not our problem. Also applies to cleaning up what's around you. The alternative is paralysis and not cleaning up anything.
I've seen images of pro-environment demonstrations that just trash their immediate surroundings while pretending to be concerned about the global state of pollution.
> Be here. Be present.
Most especially be aware of others' happiness or misery, along with our own heart's intentions and actions and how they affect both others and ourselves. Our sense of inner peace is dependent on how our karma radiates back into our heart from how we have affected others. This is the most sublime rule of the universe: you reap what you sow, for good or ill.
Cultivate universal compassion and then shine its beneficient light on as many people as you can with real effortful service.
That is the purest heading for our moral compass, and it's always our choice both what we choose to do and how to course correct our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
We ALL need to self-reflect and -evolve for the majority of our life, slogging through mistake after failure after falling short of the mark, learning humility and perseverance and mercy for others who need even more grace than we do.
"Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries." --Rumi
Totally agree.
This is something I think a lot of "do-gooders" miss. We're only in a position to do better because we took care of ourselves. It's a prerequisite. The flip side of that is taking do good (for the planet, for society e.g.) to an extreme where that becomes the only focus while letting everything else go south. We can take care of the planet only if we have the economical means to do so. We can help others only because we have enough to be able to do so. Environmentalism taken to the extreme says we should dismantle our economy because because it destroys the planet, however in the process of dismantling our economy we are taking away all the tools we have as well. If we're all poor the environment is going to do worse. People will go back to burning wood to keep themselves warm instead of e.g. using solar or nuclear power. We can have freedom only by having a culture and environment where that doesn't equate to chaos. Taken to an extreme "freedom" is chaos.
The other way of putting this is the well known saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've repeatedly made the case for something similar. But I don't think the argument should be "Taking care of yourself, in any case, yields better outcome, even for others, than prioritizing the common good. So the fundamental principle should be putting yourself first.". First, it's not always true that taking care of yourself is always the best -- sacrifice does exist and is important.
If you as say a father always put your own wellbeing (or some other definition of self-interest) first, then you're going to be a pretty lousy father. But you shouldn't ignore yourself. It's all about striking a balance, and in the end this balance simply aims toward the common good.
It doesn't make sense to say that because sometimes a naive, "greedy" strive toward the common good doesn't work then the principle is false.
You can carve real basis for the common good and other metaphysical principles. One such basis is that, metaphysically, the supreme valuation of the self is on very shaky ground. The self, although very important conceptually, doesn't stand up as an ultimate metaphysical basis, because we are really dynamic results of a whole network of interactions that includes not only whatever happens in our brains, but the whole cosmos -- there's no absolute boundary between yourself and others, and everything is always fundamentally changing. You from today is different from yesterday, and significantly different from many years ago. The common good is much more metaphysically defensible. That's why most metaphysical traditions (religions, usually) almost universally put the common good (sometimes enacted by God) above all else -- it really makes the most sense imo[1]. Again, you shouldn't be naive about it, and in practice and in most cases it makes sense to first take basic care of yourself, "keeping your house", and then go help others, but this is more a guideline, heuristic and reminder (specially important to give for radical altruists, but common sense for most people I think).
But really if yourself is your actual fundamental priority, I think you will act very poorly. Although even in that case there are good strategic reasons to be cooperative (people thinking you are evil or egoistical will already turn around many people and compromise relationships and cooperation opportunities).
[1] If you don't buy this metaphysical formulation, there's an (I believe) ultimately equivalent formulation that may be easier to accept: the fact that you "Could exist/could have been born as another person". If in some metaphysical sense you could have been born as that poor person that needs assistance, doesn't it make sense to help her, which logically implies that if you were in their shoes you would be helped?
True! If you need help, go to the poor.
People who have everything they need will make up a story where you deserve your troubles to avoid facing their own vulnerability.
It’s not just that people disagree on whether or not to do these things, it’s also that they disagree on what helps people/the world.
An evangelical and an atheist will probably disagree about the helpfulness of spreading the gospel, for example.
I do believe that personal narrative place a huge role here. I know of a poll, in which over 80% of the people believed they’re going to end up in heaven.
most people believe they do good and care about other people.
If we're talking about Christianity, the bible says all you need is to believe that when Jesus died your sins against God were forgiven. It doesn't say anything about going to heaven or hell based on how good you were. In fact, it explicity says that going to heaven is not based on "works".
Its a bit more complex and varied: Christian universalists believe everyone is saved, some (albeit small) churches believe only a few people are.
A lot of people are not Christian, nor belong to any other religion, but have a vague belief in a God and many of those do believe good people go to heaven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism
Both Catholics and Orthodox Christians (collectively making up the majority of Christians) would strongly object to this comment.
Not Christianity, but similar ethos.
At my age, it’s kind of vital to have a Purpose, so there’s that…
And why would that be a problem or impossible?
Maybe 80% of the people are good people and 0.1% of people are responsible for most of the world’s misery.
That's why being brutally truthful with yourself is essential in learning how to love others so as to actually become a good person.
The worst lies we tell are most often the ones we tell ourselves.
It's just like the low-achieving over-confident folks of Dunning-Kruger: they don't really care about the truth, they're satisfied just believing they're an expert. The real experts take a far different tac, one of humility and intense, honest work.
"Nothing is more important than compassion and only the truth is its equal."
> It's just like the low-achieving over-confident folks of Dunning-Kruger: they don't really care about the truth, they're satisfied just believing they're an expert. The real experts take a far different tac, one of humility and intense, honest work.
Do you also love these kinds of people?
Of course. Very, very few people are fully cognizant of all their existing weaknesses; those are successively revealed as we make progress on the path of love. The spiritual path is not, to my knowledge, ever fully traversed in one fell swoop of Divine Grace; in fact, it is the protracted struggle that inculcates humility, kindness, mercy, and patience in the student, of which I am but a humble struggler, too. As such, in regards to their and my own desperate need for mercy, I must selfishly insist on being merciful to others, to sow for others that which I need to reap for my own spiritual advancement. It's a benign kind of selfishness that helps foster better and better treatment of others.
So, at least for me, it's a long slog through the morass of my life full of idiotic bad habits of attitude and behavior. No, these vices must be dilligently picked off one by one, whack-a-mole style, using our mind and practices. As we progress, we must develop our humility towards those a bit further back on the progression or even stalled before the starting block, remembering that we all started out from zero when we first decided to take the path of love.
Our struggles with our ego result in either developing a demeaning, self-righteous persecution of others via false pride (thus nipping our nascent spiritual progression in the bud, if not our ill-gotten confidence), or developing a humble gratitude to the universe and its Creator for helping us overcome that vicious beast and our weakness in confronting and defeating its many dimensions of vice, one after the seemingly endless series of others.
We must either humbly submit to kindness, gratitude, and patience or suffer defeat at the hands of an ego gone mad with ignorant power.
The greatest medicine and sustenance for surmounting such formidable obstacles in the ego is compassionate service to mankind, asking nothing in return, and consulting often with the Source for help, appreciation, and inspiration.
To those who haven't begun the journey yet, we must only offer our compassionate, kind help in the best way possible, with gentle touches of wisdom. That is the best way to testify to God's love we are to carry to one and all in our every intention, thought, emotion, word, and deed, purifying them incrementally over time. These are called by some "the fruits of the spirit", and are mentioned in this NT quote:
"You will know them by their fruits."
People can say whatever they want, but the truth of everyone's life shows more and more clearly upon our face as our years of living accumulate, and also in our tone of voice and content of our utterances, but most importantly in our desires and treatment of society's least valued members.
That why Rumi said, "You have no idea how little we care about what people say."
I am really curious about your ethos here. It seems to me there's nothing for you in it. either psychologal, social, or financially.
Is it more like a calling? a spiritual consolation?
Long story.
I’m a longtime member of an organization that is about helping others. It’s not something that I go into detail about, at the level of press, radio or films.
Also, selfishly, I really enjoy this kind of work; especially at a craftsman level. It’s nice to have an excuse to do it.
Our teacher explained to us that the most selfish thing one can do is serve the happiness of others, due to the universe's feedback loop that feeds the happiness we've sown in our treatment of others back into what we reap within our inner world.
This is the most fundamental law of the human universe, and we all live under its iron fist as its gears grind our life's chosen actions' butterfly wingbeats back into us in perfect harmony with the frequency we emanated out into others, consonant or dissonant, loving or selfish, kind or cruel, generous or callous.
In addition, there are amplifiers and attenuators for both the positive and negative, especially at the narrow ends of our potentials' bell curve, so we best be careful how we wield our free will and the energy we possess to affect the world.
Ignoring this law does not change a person's situation, just their foundation for how they construct their custom decision-tree methodology of preference and habit, thus establishing their inertias and ability to self-reflect. This is because we are free to ignore the truth, just as we are fully free to be the biggest narcissistic asshole we can be given our station in life.
To boot, we're all doing this within multiple layers of our cultures' inertias that contribute to our perspective, once again, as per our choices.
Within it all, at the very center, is the most precious and perilous gift in the universe: our free will, mind, and body co-existing tripartite on this beautiful planet Earth.
Do the things that reflect the world you want to live in. If you inspire others they may inspire others and it could grow into something bigger, one day you could find yourself living in that world.
Service to others is certainly something that fills people’s cups and sometimes the best way to serve is to offer your expertise in whatever domain it may be.
> it is definitely a labor of love
Some people do things because they like doing those things…
> Some people do things because they like doing those things…
If that's the case, that means there's something in it for you, enjoyment.
Sure, why not.
Yup. I’ve always liked doing this stuff, and it’s nice to have means, and an excuse to do it.
The happiness feedback from making others happier -- even if just less miserable -- is the most excellent feeling known to man. Once a person tastes it, nothing else will ever compare.
Lovingly serving others' happiness is a part of the asymmetric dynamics of the human universe, only accessible and operant in the world of free will and the ability to learn and manifest right from wrong, love from callous disregard or even cruelty, creation or destruction.
Peace be with you, though I hardly need say that to someone who already understands peace beyond what most can comprehend. Thanks for having your boots on the ground.
[dead]