Russell would say that people of the age to be tech start-up fodder should instead DO NOTHING. It's better for them and for society.
> I hope that after reading the following pages the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.
...and...
> I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by the belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.
I think you mischaracterize Russell’s view; his “doing nothing” looks an awful lot like Graham’s “project of your own:”
> In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and the capacity. Men who in their professional work have become interested in some phase of economics or government will be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that makes the work of university economists lacking in reality. Medical men will have time to learn about the progress of medicine. Teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by routine things which they learned in their youth, which may, in the interval, have been proved to be untrue.
He’s not talking about literally sitting still, but about having the freedom to do whatever you want, without needing to justify your actions to anyone. For some people, that’s watching TV all day. For others, that’s actively pursuing a vision.
As a father of two kids who enjoyed this article, I clicked on the comments thinking, "I bet the top one is a criticism of PG." I don't understand how a predictable snide remark about PG's writing elevates this conversation. If the purpose of writing is to be read and to provoke thought and action, PG is a great writer.
PG gets held to a higher standard than anything else on here. If some random smart person put up the same article, everyone would congratulate them for at least the effort.
I can't tell if PG's (cultivated) simple style makes people think the "idea" is simple.
In any case, even if people don't like something, they don't usually go out of their way to tell the author, especially when it is something as personal as PG's essays.
This is something else PG does in this essay: he pays attention to his own feelings and sensations, and draws lessons out.
Not saying you have to like that sort of thing, but at least look at it based on its own goals.
p.s. I keep adding to this response but Russell's answer doesn't really contradict PG, at least not the way I read them.
> If some random smart person put up the same article, everyone would congratulate them for at least the effort.
Some 'random smart person' or 'some random notable smart person'?
Perhaps what people react to is the implied wisdom and halo around PG. That creates the negativity. It's the 'he's achieved something therefore what is being said is notable'.
If PG wanted he could post same thoughts under some assumed name or blog (without having Trevor, Paul et all review first) and what people think.
Also he is not opining about an issue where his expertise in particular is anything special. What he has achieved in life (that creates the halo) is not related to what he is talking about. And even in what his area of expertise is (startups or programming) he is not even close to being right most of the time (maybe programming because that is more science than art).
I think there is something to what you say, but the "halo" isn't his problem. He should write as he pleases.
He doesn't have to be an expert in what he writes. I mean from his own perspective (I assume, never met him, don't know him) he is just a regular person writing a regular article about something he found interesting.
It is entirely the reader's problem if they put this extra pressure on his "implied wisdom and halo".
> PG gets held to a higher standard than anything else on here.
This is a crazy statement to me. I'm sure you believe it, but I have the exact opposite impression: that if the majority of his stuff were posted anonymously on another domain nobody would notice or care.
> even if people don't like something, they don't usually go out of their way to tell the author
I think people do this because of the outsized home-crowd effect. His stuff is always (IMO) disproportionately upvoted here so that entices a reaction.
What? Yes it does, directly. You said he is held to a higher standard, and I gave a (hypothetical) example of how he is held to a lower standard. HN readers (IMO) give an outsized amount of attention and respect to his articles due to the author's name rather than the quality of the work, thus applying a lower standard.
We agree on attention, but the "and respect" part is the whole point of the what the poster I am responding to just said. (I get confused if that is the OP or GP)
> PG gets held to a higher standard than anything else on here.
He's unbelievably wealthy and created HN. That gives him an outsize influence that doesn't come from the merit of his ideas. Critique is a useful counterbalance to that effect so that his ideas get a level of weight more appropriate to their worth.
> If the purpose of writing is to be read and to provoke thought and action
There's a LOT more to good writing than that, and in any event it's not that big of an insult to say someone isn't as good a writer as Bertrand Russell.
Russell had the benefit of being born into the highest classes of English society and succeeding at everything he undertook. I don't think his advice is generally applicable, and he didn't seem to follow it himself.
I think BR's advice is more generally applicable than PG's.
PG has always been about the grind: the enormous work and outsized rewards of tech startups. Very few people are or ever will be successful startup founders using PG's definition of success (which ends with a billion dollars minus whatever the VC's take). I admit it's interesting to read sometimes, but it will not resonate fully unless you're all about the business.
BR is more about the individual, their potential, and the life of the mind. None of his ideas valorize about money and status.
Isn't that the point, though? He was able to live leisurely, and pursue whatever interested him, which helped him be successful.
This is a main argument for UBI - how many people who currently have to work sub-optimal jobs just to survive, would be able to explore and innovate instead?
I read it and I don’t think it’s a “much better essay by a vastly more skilled writer”. It’s not practical, but PGs essay is.
Peculiarly, I think your opinion and the difference between the two essays gives credibility to PGs points. One essay by an academic, and the other by a creator and people err on the relative value of the academic’s because that’s what they’re taught to do.
I read it and I don’t think it’s a “much better essay by a vastly more skilled writer”. It’s not practical, but BRs essay is.
Peculiarly, I think your opinion and the difference between the two essays gives credibility to BRs points. One essay by a egocentric multimillionaire, and the other by a man of knowledge and people err on the relative value of the people who make money because that’s what they’re taught to do.
What is the point of this post exactly? That the same logic can be used to argue the opposite if you invert the basic assumptions? Do you think that's such a groundbreaking observation that it justfies such a snarky post? If you actually wanted to contribute something, how about attacking those basic assumptions?
Russel's essay challenges many long-held assumptions about how the world should even work, so it goes far deeper than PG's essay. It is held in high regard particularly because of this, not because Russel was an academic.
It also explains its points in quite a lot of detail, building a very clear picture of the world and how it got here, pre-emptively dispelling any attack in the style of Chesterton's fence: it not only complains about the negative effects of the praise for work, but also explains why they were initially put in place.
Thirdly, PG's essay is essentially a special case of pretty well known, more general point. PG is essentially word for word stating a common socialist critique of wage work: the alienation one feels when their work is not under their own control, but instead dictated by a capitalist owner. "Finding a project of one's own" is in fact the individualist version of "seizing the means of production".
> One essay by an academic, and the other by a creator
It's a bit unfair to paint PG as just an "academic". Sure he basically rushed from academia straight into the business world, but he's created things as well. I mean being an investment capitalist will hardly compete with creating ambitious works like Principia Mathematica, but PG has written a few books on the side. Some of his earlier stuff, like On Lisp isn't half bad.
PG has also done his fair share to influence other creators, of course his influence will never be near as great as Russel's, I mean you don't run into a Wittgenstein more than once a generation. While most of PGs influence has been mostly to help other capitalist acquire more wealthy by any means necessary, he was able to help a few very interesting people like Aaron Swartz.
And while PG will never stick is neck out for anyone but himself, worried endlessly about this "intellectual" reputation, you can't expect all creators to be willing get themselves thrown in prison at the age of 89 to fight for what they believe is right.
tl;dr sure PG will never be as powerful of a creative and inspirational force as Russell, but it's unfair to say he's "just an academic"
I think that was not_jd_salinger's joke, challenging the tacit assumption that academia produces nothing of value or practical worth whilst business people are inherently creative and value creating.
Yes, but also no. PG is not just saying that this is good for people, but also should be sought by their employers. The former is fine. Go find a thing that brings you joy and pay. The problem is when employers seek people who find joy in their work so they can abuse them by cutting other benefits.
But he also talks about using this as a mechanism for distinguishing YC candidates. So this is coming from a place of "how do capitalists choose laborers".
I think, however, that PG's idea of "a project" as much as he says it should be "for fun" -- is actually just a segway (wormhole) into a start-up!
> One way to ensure autonomy is not to have a boss at all. There are two ways to do that: to be the boss yourself, and to work on projects outside of work. Though they're at opposite ends of the scale financially, startups and open source projects have a lot in common, including the fact that they're often run by skaters. And indeed, there's a wormhole from one end of the scale to the other: one of the best ways to discover startup ideas is to work on a project just for fun.
FYI: it's spelt segue. Segway is the brand-name of a self-balancing wheeled contraption that was supposed to revolutionize urban transportation 2 decades ago, but only saw success in the mall-cop niche.
https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
Russell would say that people of the age to be tech start-up fodder should instead DO NOTHING. It's better for them and for society.
> I hope that after reading the following pages the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.
...and...
> I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by the belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.