Wasting your talents.: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2

Wasting your talents.

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 05/23/08 - 09:00 PM: Subject: Wasting your talents.	#1
If it is within the scope of a person's abilities to do great and glorious things, is it selfish to instead choose a life of simple contentment? And more importantly, is this selfish on an unethical scale? Some things I feel I should add to the question: I'm not talking about choosing hedonism: the life you choose to live will be very normal and hardworking. An example would be the sterotype of the brilliant Roman general who just wants to go home and be a farmer. Although you will be doing a job that is very difficult and not something you want, it will result in you being powerful, widely known and loved, economically comfortable and possibly historical. The thing you are doing will ultimately be benificial to the people around you, possibly nesscesary.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 54

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/23/08 - 09:28 PM:	#2
They are your talents. Yours. Not anybody else's. It is up to you to use those talents in any way you want that isn't wrong, and nobody can tell you otherwise. You are under no obligation to do anything with your talents. You simply are to not use them for evil. (wow that sounded kinda corny)

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 05/24/08 - 01:31 AM:	#3
So that's a yes selfish, no immoral? And if your with holding something good, are you not in fact doing evil?
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 05/24/08 - 04:47 AM:	#4
Does the general get pleasure from doing hard work at the farm? Is he bored with being a general? One can ask why else the general would choose to work at the farm. How do you define hedonism? Anyways the world in which everyone would waste their talents would be one in which you would not want to live in, so yes, it would not be ethical to do so, however I think there is room to choose a bit between talents you have, especially if you have many that you can't develope all. Being an ethical duty, it is not something that can be legislated over, still one can encourage people to develope their talents.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 97

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/24/08 - 06:44 AM:	#5
PontificatingChauncy wrote: And if you're withholding something good, are you not in fact doing evil? This would not be true if you allowed for the category of the supererogatory, which common sense at least allows for: that some actions would be good but not therefore obligatory (e.g. charity).
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 54

Posted 05/24/08 - 10:19 AM:	#6
PontificatingChauncy wrote: So that's a yes selfish, no immoral? And if your with holding something good, are you not in fact doing evil? Of course not. There is no such thing as "withholding good" in the way you speak of. There is simply "not doing evil" and that's it.

travesty
Questioner

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 24, 2008
Location: Bum Fucking Egypt

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/24/08 - 10:39 AM:	#7
I think that the sole purpose in life is to be happy, and create happiness for others. Not in the way that probably comes to mind, of almost christian morals of 'love thy neighbour', but in a more worldly sense, like a kind old man, who lives in the woods, and takes in travelers. (Which is sorta contradictory, because by taking in travelers, he is loving his neighbour) But I digress, No to selfish, and no to immoral. Your life is just that, your life, and if you choose to be a farmer when you could very well be a Roman general, then that's your choice, and so long as you're happy, then your life purpose is fulfilled.
gorilla suffocate, gorilla maim

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 05/24/08 - 05:18 PM:	#8
keda wrote: Does the general get pleasure from doing hard work at the farm? Is he bored with being a general? One can ask why else the general would choose to work at the farm. How do you define hedonism? Yes, because that's just an example. And I wouldn't say he's bored so much as that he feels no pleasure at the exercise of power: He doesn't feel a rush of power when he knows about his men's unquestioning loyalty or a decisive victory; he just feels the burden of command. As a farmer he wouldn't be directly responsible for other people's problems or defending the empire. He could just relax, mind his own buissiness, sleep in once in a while.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

Gnist
Deranged Guitarist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/26/08 - 07:39 PM:	#9
So allow me to throw a monkey wrench into the topic. What if your talent happens to be (as the world might see it) evil? Hitler, Stalin, and Caligula were all quite good at what they did -- as unpleasant as it was. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 05/27/08 - 09:37 AM. Reason: punctuation
www.soundclick.com/averystemmler

Prime_Mover
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 469

Posted 05/26/08 - 08:18 PM:	#10
PontificatingChauncy wrote: If it is within the scope of a person's abilities to do great and glorious things, is it selfish to instead choose a life of simple contentment? And more importantly, is this selfish on an unethical scale? There is no duty, or moral obligate, one has to use one's talents. One's talents are purely his, they belong to no one else. It would only be unethical and immoral (on a selfish scale) if others forced him to use his talents for their or his own good. A person lives his life for his sake and his sake alone, not to serve the interests of his community or those who would benefit from his talents.
On philosophical vacation until May 8, 2009.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.