'Why Study Philosophy'

I honestly don't know how to answer. It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense. You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is. And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose. For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.
 
I honestly don't know how to answer. It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense. You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is. And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose. For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.


Do you even realize what you're doing?

Pointing the finger everywhere but where it belongs.
 
Being cryptic doesn't make you anymore profound. I know what you are doing however. You are being a jerk.
Actually my finger's' belong in my ears as to
I honestly don't know how to answer. It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense. You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is. And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose. For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.


Do you even realize what you're doing?

Pointing the finger everywhere but where it belongs.
And so these conditions are irrelevant?
 
Don't answer that question. I am not interested in such a discussion with one that is all about 'pull one's self up by one's own bootstrap' rhetoric. It is typical Tea Party/Libertarian drivel.
 
Well, since this is a thread about philosophy, let us inject some philosophy into the discussion and put the attribute of laziness through what the philosophers call rigor. Is laziness truly a vice? Not necessarily and not always, I would say. Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load. This reduces the work load significantly for the lazy guy and thus allows him to sit all day and do nothing and be lazy. This begets another question: does laziness provide impetus that results in invention?
 
Well, since this is a thread about philosophy, let us inject some philosophy into the discussion and put the attribute of laziness through what the philosophers call rigor. Is laziness truly a vice? Not necessarily and not always, I would say. Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load. This reduces the work load significantly for the lazy guy and thus allows him to sit all day and do nothing and be lazy. This begets another question: does laziness provide impetus that results in invention?
Good point!
 
I am not interested in such a discussion with one that is all about 'pull one's self up by one's own bootstrap' rhetoric.


Wow, that says a lot about you. I sure as hell don't blame all those companies for being "lazy."
 
Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load.


That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.
 
That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.

Once the wheelbarrow is ready, the lazy one will have to just make one trip while the hard working one will have to make multiple trips.
 
Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load.


That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.
Where do the parts for a wheelbarrow come from?
 
That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.

Once the wheelbarrow is ready, the lazy one will have to just make one trip while the hard working one will have to make multiple trips.

Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.
 
Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.

We work to fulfill certain objective. It is rational to assume that we do not work just to work.

Let us say that the task of carrying load from point x to point y has an explicit objective of securing wood to light fire to cook and keep the cave/home/dwelling warm. You only need certain amount of wood to accomplish that. Let us say you can only carry 50Lb of wood per trip without a wheelbarrow. You need 100Lb of wood daily to meet your needs. Let us say with the wheelbarrow you can carry 200Lb of wood in one trip. So the lazy guy with the wheelbarrow has to only make one trip every two day. While the hard working guy has to make two trips per day.

You cannot deny that laziness provides a powerful incentive towards invention.
 
Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.

We work to fulfill certain objective. It is rational to assume that we do not work just to work.



It is not rational to assume that the completion of one task means there are no further tasks to complete. The invention of the Cotton Gin didn't discourage slavery, it encouraged more. Why is that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top