ambition/success in society vs. following your passions

[Eldanen]

Follow my passions. I have no qualms living a minimalistic lifestyle so that I can do what I love. I will give up a lot of what I don't want to get the one thing that I do want.

 

[Wade Wilson]

What dreams do you guys have/did you chase?

I want to be a comic book writer; no spotlight or red carpet for me. Only the respect of my colleagues and fans. Oh, and also for the hot cosplay chicks at con.

 

[Giggly]

 

[G-Virus]

LMFAO awsome.

 

[nightning]

do you think it is better to follow ambitions which lead to success (by society's definition) and to do what "makes sense", or to follow your passions regardless of the disadvantages your lifestyle may suffer?

if so many people say the same thing, do you think that gives it more credit (ie, maybe they're on to something you dont know?)

Do what you think will make you happy. If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.

Other people don't necessarily know more than you. I think most of the difference in opinion stems from a difference in wants and desires.

 

[pippi]

If you are lucky enough to be well paid for your passion do it. If not, then find something to get paid for that you can tolerate and pursue your passions outside of that. Nothing wrong with having a passion as a hobby. That's success in my opinion, doing what makes you happy.

 

[Grayscale]

Do what you think will make you happy. If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.

Other people don't necessarily know more than you. I think most of the difference in opinion stems from a difference in wants and desires.

very wise. perhaps it is not that one is necessary right and the other wrong, but that i just don't value success in the eyes of others.

What dreams do you guys have/did you chase?

im not sure what my "dreams" are. as a kid i fantasized about adventuring, i always wanted to be a fighter jet pilot. a more mature version of those desires are exploring the outdoors and far reaches of the planet.

when it comes to working hard, i need a good reason... making someone else money is hardly motivating. i dont really belong to this era... i identify a lot with roles people have had in past ages, and it seems like a lot of honor has been lost in why we do what we do.

i guess i asked this question because i am at a junction. for the past year or so i have been thinking about going to college to study engineering, something im confident i will be good at, but im good at what i do now and i dont enjoy that. it is a huge commitment of time and money and i dont want to repeat mistakes. i will probably like it, but the fact of the matter is that i dont think i could ever love it.

im not sure if im cut out for a desk job. i have another type of job in mind, something that would have a lot of meaning to me, but it's tough and doesn't pay well. it's also something i could eventually take to the mountains and more unfriendly parts of the earth and the people who need it there.

it's easy to say i should "obviously" follow that, but it's a tougher decision than many people think, considering i have a lot of what society values in my hands and i would be throwing that away for my own meaning of success and happiness... it makes me question my perspective of it all. believe it or not, i dont completely ignore everyone else's way of doing things. i still have a lot of my life in front of me, that is a luxury... i dont want to blow it.

 

[Lexlike]

like grayscale, i do not know really what my "dreams" are... when I was a child I loved cars, so I wanted to become a car desinger or car constructor, as a teenager i dreamed to become a professional Basketball-player, but realizesd with 17 i could never make it.
So I finished high school and preepared for law school...At first I hated law school and struggled in it,
my interests are extremly vague: I like politics, philosophy, psychology, spirituallity , anthrophology etc. but I cannot see myself in any of those fields except doing researchwork...
Now I m at the standpoint, that I want to finish law... and propably become an attorney... if this is not for me: make the Phd and try to work at a collge...
I think with both jobs I could combine passion and ambtion, the only problem is: i have to finish law school

 

[Synarch]

You must make a living. You must create value. We are not separate from the material world. Other animals hunt or graze, we labor.

Creating value means providing something that other people want, so that they will exchange money (which is the quintessence of value itself). You labor to produce, whether that be working for someone else or working independently. We exchange this labor for the means to survive and prosper.

Where most people fail in pursuing their "passions" (whatever that means) is that they fail to monetize their labor. They even sometimes feel like it is beneath themselves to demand money for their produce. If you cannot reasonably demand money for your work, what does that say about how you regard your work? That it is not valuable? Is what you produce valuable? If so, you can make a living from it.

You must create value to exchange it for money. If you are creating art that no one wants, are you really creating art? Think about that.

 

[Orangey]

You must make a living. You must create value. We are not separate from the material world. Other animals hunt or graze, we labor.

Creating value means providing something that other people want, so that they will exchange money (which is the quintessence of value itself). You labor to produce, whether that be working for someone else or working independently. We exchange this labor for the means to survive and prosper.

Where most people fail in pursuing their "passions" (whatever that means) is that they fail to monetize their labor. They even sometimes feel like it is beneath themselves to demand money for their produce. If you cannot reasonably demand money for your work, what does that say about how you regard your work? That it is not valuable? Is what you produce valuable? If so, you can make a living from it.

You must create value to exchange it for money. If you are creating art that no one wants, are you really creating art? Think about that.

That doesn't make sense. All you've managed to say here is that if you're creating art that no one wants, you're not going to get any money for it. Where do you get the idea that if one doesn't receive money for their art (or doesn't want to receive money for their work), that they don't regard it as valuable, or that it is not valuable in some other way?

 

[Synarch]

Money is liquid value. It is also value neutral. Not wanting money is generally nonsensical as it can be put toward any purpose, especially non-materialistic purposes. If you mean to make some statement about the futility of purpose, then that is really outside the bounds of a discussion on following your passions (and being able to live at the same time). I mean, if their work is so important to someone that they do not want to exchange it for money, then that is a different topic. That does not mean what they do is not worth money.

If people are not willing to compensate you, how valuable is what you do? If you write a brilliant novel, wouldn't people be willing to reward you? I would. Does that mean you should seek money or prostitute yourself? No, but don't complain about being penniless and following dreams. The two are not mutually exclusive, we only make it so.

Can something be valuable only to one person and to no one else? Maybe, but I wouldn't consider this art as important as something that has the ability to resonate and impact other people. Look at the art of schizophrenics. It is normally so individualized and without unity that it just does not have the power to resonate with the viewer except on the level of oddball curiosity. True art impacts and connects. True art reflects back the universality of life and this world.

 

[Orangey]

Money is liquid value. It is also value neutral. Not wanting money is generally nonsensical as it can be put toward any purpose, especially non-materialistic purposes. If you mean to make some statement about the futility of purpose, then that is really outside the bounds of a discussion on following your passions (and being able to live at the same time). I mean, if their work is so important to someone that they do not want to exchange it for money, then that is a different topic. That does not mean what they do is not worth money.

If people are not willing to compensate you, how valuable is what you do? If you write a brilliant novel, wouldn't people be willing to reward you? I would. Does that mean you should seek money or prostitute yourself? No, but don't complain about being penniless and following dreams. The two are not mutually exclusive, we only make it so.

Can something be valuable only to one person and to no one else? Maybe, but I wouldn't consider this art as important as something that has the ability to resonate and impact other people. Look at the art of schizophrenics. It is normally so individualized and without unity that it just does not have the power to resonate with the viewer except on the level of oddball curiosity. True art impacts and connects. True art reflects back the universality of life and this world.

First of all, I don't know of anyone who would refuse compensation for their work (and that's not what I'm arguing).

Second, to the bolded question, the answer is an emphatic NO. You are making it seem as though monetary value is something that is decided apart from historical and cultural context. That is wrong. A piece of art, for instance, may not be worth as much during one era (or in one part of the world at one time) as in another. This is where people get the phrase "starving artist"...because many great artists were obscure and underpaid during their time. Surely their work was not bad because no one wanted to pay them anything for it.

Third, the extent to which "true art" connects and resonates with the "universality of life" is not determined by its amount of exposure to other people.

 

[Synarch]

Second, to the bolded question, the answer is an emphatic NO. You are making it seem as though monetary value is something that is decided apart from historical and cultural context. That is wrong. A piece of art, for instance, may not be worth as much during one era (or in one part of the world at one time) as in another. This is where people get the phrase "starving artist"...because many great artists were obscure and underpaid during their time. Surely their work was not bad because no one wanted to pay them anything for it.

Their work was without value for them (bad) in that they did not benefit from it directly. Certainly this relies completely on context. Someone in the year 6000 may find the ashtray I made in middle school art class and decide that it is an artifact of priceless antiquity and value. Does that mean it is valuable? We can only discuss right now and we can really only measure using money. All other measures are purely subjective and without practical purpose.

 

[nightning]

*throws in her random two cents*

Why must "creating value" necessarily be the opposite of "following your passions"? There are ways to work it to have both. It depends on how flexible you're willing to be and how much effort you're willing to put in to make that dream a reality.

Take art for example. Yes, you can be a starving artist... but you can also find a job in a related field and express yourself there, e.g. applied art (aka design?).

 

[Orangey]

Their work was without value for them (bad) in that they did not benefit from it directly. Certainly this relies completely on context. Someone in the year 6000 may find the ashtray I made in middle school art class and decide that it is an artifact of priceless antiquity and value. Does that mean it is valuable? We can only discuss right now and we can really only measure using money. All other measures are purely subjective and without practical purpose.

But measuring something's value in terms of what its worth monetarily is also subjective, because that value may change depending on the mood of consumers. Of course measuring, say, a painting's value in terms of its great technique or inventiveness is less practical than measuring it's worth in dollars at the moment, but practicality is not the only value in the world worth aspiring to.

 

[Grayscale]

That doesn't make sense. All you've managed to say here is that if you're creating art that no one wants, you're not going to get any money for it. Where do you get the idea that if one doesn't receive money for their art (or doesn't want to receive money for their work), that they don't regard it as valuable, or that it is not valuable in some other way?

my interpretation was that it is society's value of what you do that determines its legitimacy as a means of survival

it would probably be better to say that you may create art that nobody wants (ever), but you would not be an artist, at least not in a professional sense. that is to say, professional definition is given by society, not what any given person values doing. that is because this title is most often used to represent what that person means to the rest of us, and although a person might call himself a pinochle player, we could care less and would probably call him a gas station attendant.

however, synarch, i think what youre saying is an oversimplification. some people can have the best of both worlds, but far more often it is a balance between prosperity and satisfaction. the question is, what is the best balance?

going back to the original question, it is no surprise that society places a positive stigma on making a lot of money, because this is what you need to prosper in said society. but on the other end of the spectrum, if there were no society (assume momentarily that one could still get a job) then the value of money wouldnt exist and people would seek satisfaction.

tying in what nightning said "If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.", in other words, it depends whether you are more emotionally invested in how you integrate with society or your own individual experience.

 

[Synarch]

I am not saying their is no satisfaction or joy in creation for one's own benefit or to serve some ideal or impulse. I'm just saying that if you want your labor to flow through to your life in such a way to where you may subsist on it, you must keep in mind its value. I agree with the subjectivity of the marketplace, however this is a subjectivity you can milk and transmute into the rudiments for continued corporeal existence.

 

[Synarch]

tying in what nightning said "If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.", in other words, it depends whether you are more emotionally invested in how you integrate with society or your own individual experience.

Total agreement. Most people who abhor the idea of the marketplace for their 'art' are also people who are rather uncomfortable with most forms of social congress.

 

[Grayscale]

I am not saying their is no satisfaction or joy in creation for one's own benefit or to serve some ideal or impulse. I'm just saying that if you want your labor to flow through to your life in such a way to where you may subsist on it, you must keep in mind its value. I agree with the subjectivity of the marketplace, however this is a subjectivity you can milk and transmute into the rudiments for continued corporeal existence.

i understand what youre saying but the question still remains--how much should money cost us?

Total agreement. Most people who abhor the idea of the marketplace for their 'art' are also people who are rather uncomfortable with most forms of social congress.

that is a fairly extreme example... i mean to approach this on the subject for the majority in the middle who would neither sell our soul for money nor live in a cardboard box for our passions.

 

[Lexlike]

I think society itself is obssesed to measure everythink by "value", while the best measurement is money. Bot it its not, propably an odd example: i always asked my father why he does not want to sell his old mercedes. He answered me: I love the car and I will never sell it. So value is for everyone subjective, as everything. A peace of art has aslo a value, but it differes indivually.
i think it is not the goal or it should be the goal of every indidviduall to achieve the greatest value of his work by making the most money.
Great examples are Marx, Tolstoy, who indeed never fit in in society, but who were passionated thiknkers and who created value, which you cannot measure with money.
Both grew up in wealthy families, but they followed their ideals. Tostoy lived as a author in his "prime time" in the high society, but he confessed that they life they all lead there was "irrelevant" and he moved to Sibiria to the poor workers, where he become at the end one of them...
He refused even a nobel prize, as many Artists did before and after him...
So Passion is not measurable