DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
1yr ago
You have not defined ambition and that is annoying to me.
Looking at various definitions of ambition. There is "a strong wish to achieve something" which, I suppose when put into action might be called "Drive".
There is also "a strong wish to be successful, powerful, rich, etc." which is possibly closer to the idea you are debunking, except you're doing it by saying that successful/powerful/rich/etc. is highly relative. I think few would disagree.
I do not think your introduced terminology/acronyms adds anything and that is annoying to me as well.
DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
pHollda 1yr ago
Not sufficiently, because working a 48 hour retail cashier shift or 20 hour ditch digging effort is extremely challenging and not at all ambitious in other senses except an extremely limited context of possible overtime pay that does not reach the relative wealth suggested by ambition.
DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
pHollda 1yr ago
Please elaborate on the obvious and implicit parts of your argument that I missed, past the debatable idea that generic people have chosen their job, and flatly wrong idea that they are happy to do it.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You have not defined ambition and that is annoying to me.
Looking at various definitions of ambition. There is "a strong wish to achieve something" which, I suppose when put into action might be called "Drive".
There is also "a strong wish to be successful, powerful, rich, etc." which is possibly closer to the idea you are debunking, except you're doing it by saying that successful/powerful/rich/etc. is highly relative. I think few would disagree.
I do not think your introduced terminology/acronyms adds anything and that is annoying to me as well.
Not sufficiently, because working a 48 hour retail cashier shift or 20 hour ditch digging effort is extremely challenging and not at all ambitious in other senses except an extremely limited context of possible overtime pay that does not reach the relative wealth suggested by ambition.
Please elaborate on the obvious and implicit parts of your argument that I missed, past the debatable idea that generic people have chosen their job, and flatly wrong idea that they are happy to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link